The role of the music score is an important one, as a lingua franca – it puts musical information in a format a lot of people can read. And it does that by adhering to standards.
Now with computers, phones, and tablets all over the planet, can music notation adapt?
A new group is working on bringing digital notation as a standard to the Web. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) – yes, the folks who bring you other Web standards – formed what they’re describing as a “community group” to work on notation.
That doesn’t mean your next Chrome build will give you lead sheets. W3C are hosting, not endorsing the project – not yet. And there’s a lot of work to be done. But many of the necessary players are onboard, which could mean some musically useful progress.
The news arrived in my inbox by way of Hamburg-based Steinberg. That’s no surprise; we knew back in 2013 that the core team behind Sibelius had arrived at Steinberg after a reorganization at Avid pushed them out of the company they original started.
The other big player in the group is MakeMusic, developers of Finale. And they’re not mincing words: they’re transferring the ownership of the MusicXML interchange format to the new, open group:
MakeMusic Transfers MusicXML Development to W3C [musicxml.com]
The next step: make notation work on the Web. Sibelius were, while not the first to put notation on the Web, the first to popularize online sharing as a headline feature in a mainstream notation tool. Sibelius even had a platform for sharing and selling scores, complete with music playback. But that was dependent on a proprietary plug-in – now, the browser is finally catching up, and we can do all of the things Scorch does right in browser.
So, it’s time for an open standard. And the basic foundation already exists. The new W3C Music Notation Community Group promises to “maintain and update” two existing standards – MusicXML and the awkwardly-acronym’ed SMuFL (Standard Music Font Layout). Smuffle sounds like a Muppet from Sesame Street, but okay.
These are two important pieces of the puzzle.
MusicXML is a standard format for describing the entire score in a way that can be exchanged. It’s supported by 200 applications already; it’d be terrific to see native support in browser like Chrome and Firefox and Safari. Currently, the format is managed by MakeMusic and its VP of Research and Development — the original creator, Michael Good. MakeMusic acquired the technology along with Recordare, who built support for other apps. Unlike some acquisitions, cough, they’ve since expanded, not contracted, support and compatibility.
SMuFL helps you standardize which symbols get mapped to codes and how they’re added to a score – so that specialized (Western) music symbols show up correctly. (You want the right code, and you want it to show up in the right place on the score!) SMuFL was introduced by Daniel Spreadbury (he’s now at Steinberg) in 2013, but it’s also set to be built into a coming version of Finale. Basically, the idea is to expand upon the woefully inadequate mappings in Unicode to cover the sorts of symbols people working with scores use every day.
And that’s what this is all about: the notation software business benefits from more compatibility. The easier it is to share scores, the more people make scores, and the more they can use notation tools. Accordingly, the group will be co-chaired by Michael Good, Steinberg’s Daniel Spreadbury, and Noteflight’s Joe Berkovitz. Significantly, Mr. Berkovitz also chairs the W3C Audio group that’s been moving along in-browser sound. That puts the whole initiative in very capable hands.
Also, because Noteflight is owned by Hal Leonard, that leading digital and print publisher of scores is also involved.
That said, there’s room to look more broadly. I will put on my academic hat and strongly urge the W3C community group to consider an expanded music notational language for the Web covering non-Western notational systems. Graphic notation (as in experimental composition) is perhaps best described simply with existing open-ended graphic languages, but there are some extended notational systems in common use in such a way that they could be standardized. Music notation standards also should consider a non-Western perspective. The proposal to me calls out for a third “puzzle piece” specification, and actually the Web would be an ideal place to experiment, as it’s nearly universally accessible and not bound by the kinds of economies of development, marketing, resale, and support that restrict monolithic notation programs like Finale or Sibelius.
I’m also concerned that so far the people developing the standard represent only technologists selling music software and don’t yet include input from the realms of music theory and musicology. Desktop publishing worked because of rich input from people who worked directly with traditional typography and design; color formulations require an understanding of how color is used outside only how it is reproduced.
Fortunately, this is project features an open call.
Find out more about the group:
https://www.w3.org/community/music-notation/
Read Michael’s excellent opening story on how these projects evolved and what the group intends to do:
He talks specifically about expanding interactive and Web possibilities, starting with updating these existing formats. And that could reach a lot of people:
Introducing the Music Notation Community Group
The group aims to serve a broad range of users engaging in music-related activities involving notation. These users include, among others, software developers, music publishers, composers, performers, students, listeners, scholars and librarians. Some of the activities covered include composing, arranging, preparing, performing, teaching, learning, studying, and enjoying notated music.
Call for Participation in Music Notation Community Group
This seems to me a promising start, and putting this on the Web could more easily invite just that sort of input.
If the Web is about sharing ideas, the ability to share scores, to be able to communicate intentions to other musicians, must surely be fundamental. Our browser may still be catching up with what paper could do in the 19th Century. But this could be the beginning of 21st century notation, too.
At top: an example of what you can do with MusicXML.
“I’m also concerned that so far the people developing the standard
represent only technologists selling music software and don’t yet
include input from the realms of music theory and musicology.”
Very valid concerns – but readers should also be aware of the ongoing Music Encoding Initiative, an open-source project, which has been going for some years and has already been used in several digital critical editions of music, and musicological projects.
It’s a great, supportive, and open community. More info can be see at:
http://music-encoding.org/
Oh, I like the way that looks – a lot. So it seems you get Lilypond-style commands but in a more rational / streamlined / cleaned up format? And you don’t have to rely on complex rendering back ends? Or am I seeing this wrong?
I’ll certainly look more deeply.
It’s a good thing I have the Web to remember things from my brain, because my brain doesn’t. From 2010:
http://createdigitalmusic.com/2010/05/music-notation-with-html5-canvas-in-the-browser-standard-formats-for-scores/
Thanks for covering it, Peter. I’d also like to know if like Lilypond it commits to better engraving principles in spacing/playability.
First of all — a very thoughtful writeup Peter, as usual. I’m very happy you chose to cover this new W3C notation group.
It’s true that the co-chairs (including me) are technologists, but I hope people won’t read too much into that fact. I’m eager to see active participation from outside the software world, and I now represent a publishing company, not just a notation software vendor. That publishing company (Hal Leonard) is filled with expert music editors and engravers who fit Peter’s apt phrase, “people who [work] directly with traditional typography and design.” They are, by and large, not software people.
One thing that I spoke about at Musik Messe this year was the need to gather and document use cases for music notation formats clearly. The original MusicXML community was a bit developer-centered, as one might expect from its origins as an exchange format between notation programs. I think the new group needs to begin by pulling in as broad a set of interests as possible, and a use case document will lend much greater transparency to the ways in which those interests are served.
I’m also very aware of MEI, which has been successful at addressing some concerns that are not covered so well by MusicXML. I hope that the authors and users and MEI will lend their voices to the new effort so that what emerges will incorporate the best of both worlds. I don’t think it’s an either-or proposition between MusicXML and MEI. The W3C effort has to start somewhere. We may have chosen to begin by building on top of a standard that has wider adoption in the software world, but that doesn’t imply that we are baking in the original (and, to be fair, inevitable) assumptions and biases of that standard.
“I’m also concerned that so far the people developing the standard
represent only technologists selling music software and don’t yet
include input from the realms of music theory and musicology.”
Very valid concerns – but readers should also be aware of the ongoing Music Encoding Initiative, an open-source project, which has been going for some years and has already been used in several digital critical editions of music, and musicological projects.
It’s a great, supportive, and open community. More info can be see at:
http://music-encoding.org/
Oh, I like the way that looks – a lot. So it seems you get Lilypond-style commands but in a more rational / streamlined / cleaned up format? And you don’t have to rely on complex rendering back ends? Or am I seeing this wrong?
I’ll certainly look more deeply.
It’s a good thing I have the Web to remember things from my brain, because my brain doesn’t. From 2010:
http://createdigitalmusic.com/2010/05/music-notation-with-html5-canvas-in-the-browser-standard-formats-for-scores/
Thanks for covering it, Peter. I’d also like to know if like Lilypond it commits to better engraving principles in spacing/playability.
First of all — a very thoughtful writeup Peter, as usual. I’m very happy you chose to cover this new W3C notation group.
It’s true that the co-chairs (including me) are technologists, but I hope people won’t read too much into that fact. I’m eager to see active participation from outside the software world, and I now represent a publishing company, not just a notation software vendor. That publishing company (Hal Leonard) is filled with expert music editors and engravers who fit Peter’s apt phrase, “people who [work] directly with traditional typography and design.” They are, by and large, not software people.
One thing that I spoke about at Musik Messe this year was the need to gather and document use cases for music notation formats clearly. The original MusicXML community was a bit developer-centered, as one might expect from its origins as an exchange format between notation programs. I think the new group needs to begin by pulling in as broad a set of interests as possible, and a use case document will lend much greater transparency to the ways in which those interests are served.
I’m also very aware of MEI, which has been successful at addressing some concerns that are not covered so well by MusicXML. I hope that the authors and users and MEI will lend their voices to the new effort so that what emerges will incorporate the best of both worlds. I don’t think it’s an either-or proposition between MusicXML and MEI. The W3C effort has to start somewhere. We may have chosen to begin by building on top of a standard that has wider adoption in the software world, but that doesn’t imply that we are baking in the original (and, to be fair, inevitable) assumptions and biases of that standard.
“I’m also concerned that so far the people developing the standard
represent only technologists selling music software and don’t yet
include input from the realms of music theory and musicology.”
Very valid concerns – but readers should also be aware of the ongoing Music Encoding Initiative, an open-source project, which has been going for some years and has already been used in several digital critical editions of music, and musicological projects.
It’s a great, supportive, and open community. More info can be see at:
http://music-encoding.org/
Oh, I like the way that looks – a lot. So it seems you get Lilypond-style commands but in a more rational / streamlined / cleaned up format? And you don’t have to rely on complex rendering back ends? Or am I seeing this wrong?
I’ll certainly look more deeply.
It’s a good thing I have the Web to remember things from my brain, because my brain doesn’t. From 2010:
http://createdigitalmusic.com/2010/05/music-notation-with-html5-canvas-in-the-browser-standard-formats-for-scores/
Thanks for covering it, Peter. I’d also like to know if like Lilypond it commits to better engraving principles in spacing/playability.
First of all — a very thoughtful writeup Peter, as usual. I’m very happy you chose to cover this new W3C notation group.
It’s true that the co-chairs (including me) are technologists, but I hope people won’t read too much into that fact. I’m eager to see active participation from outside the software world, and I now represent a publishing company, not just a notation software vendor. That publishing company (Hal Leonard) is filled with expert music editors and engravers who fit Peter’s apt phrase, “people who [work] directly with traditional typography and design.” They are, by and large, not software people.
One thing that I spoke about at Musik Messe this year was the need to gather and document use cases for music notation formats clearly. The original MusicXML community was a bit developer-centered, as one might expect from its origins as an exchange format between notation programs. I think the new group needs to begin by pulling in as broad a set of interests as possible, and a use case document will lend much greater transparency to the ways in which those interests are served.
I’m also very aware of MEI, which has been successful at addressing some concerns that are not covered so well by MusicXML. I hope that the authors and users and MEI will lend their voices to the new effort so that what emerges will incorporate the best of both worlds. I don’t think it’s an either-or proposition between MusicXML and MEI. The W3C effort has to start somewhere. We may have chosen to begin by building on top of a standard that has wider adoption in the software world, but that doesn’t imply that we are baking in the original (and, to be fair, inevitable) assumptions and biases of that standard.
Cool stuff and great write up Peter—especially pointing out the industry connections and that Mr. Berkovitz has experience in the soupy web that is getting things done at the W3C. And I totally agree on the web being the perfect opportunity to expand beyond western notation.
I’m glad they are tackling this. There are other ways to visually represent western music than standard notation and having a W3C standard will encourage display hacking. Ran across this article on Medium a couple of weeks ago and seems an appropriate place to share it: https://medium.com/happy-ninja/how-i-d-redesign-piano-sheet-music-355c4f9012f1
Cool article. I think traditional sheet music leaves a lot to be desired. I prefer the standard midi note grid found in most DAW’s. When I think about traditional notation it makes me feel like its best left to the academics in love with the sound of their own voice who may prefer talking about music then creating it.
Yes, but then a standard grid gets diffic–
Hold on, rather than reconstruct the entire history of music notation, let’s just say this: it solves problems a perfectly proportional grid may not, and a whole bunch of people already read it. And the vast majority of them *aren’t* academics. 😉
I totally agree with you, but you have to admit it is somewhat archaic. Take for instance, what is the notation for reverb goes here.
Also one question because I am curious. Are there symbols for world scales? Can you switch to a Balinese scale?
Okay, so let’s take India, Indonesia, and China as examples – and they’re three fast-growing populations.
Of course, this turns out to be actually a lot easier than the Western-derived notational problems described above.
All three in their classical traditions use primarily aural/rote transmission. When they are notated, the most common systems are cipher systems – you just need numbers, and those are really easy to encode.
I guess therefore what I’m really asking is to expand the discussion of how music might be transmitted on the Web. The goals here specifically refer to Western music notation; so it’s a matter of actually just opening up this question to lots of different musicians (wherever they might be) and finding out.
This turned into a fairly interesting conversation. I really appreciate the concise answer Peter. Micro-tuning and pitch-bend cover non-western scales as far as midi is concerned. I was curious how it works with notation.. thanks for the answer. From the way you describe it sounds doable but I wonder what kind of workflow someone is looking at. I have been doing a lot of music recently that use’s per note pitch-bends and portamento slides into new scales. Bitwig has the pitch per note thing and we are also entering an era where one song can be played in multiple different ways at different speeds as you have made us aware in recent articles. Also … isn’t the new midi standard almost here? Anyhow, very interesting topic.
The microtonal/xenharmonic community has never settled on a notation standard, although many systems have been proposed.
If you want to score to reflect the composer’s intent, it makes a big difference whether the piece is written within just intonation, an equal temperament or subset thereof, a historical or non-western tuning, or some other paradigm altogether.
In many cases there are instrument specific requirements. If your piece requires a traditionally-trained saxophonist or violist you might want to use standard notation with special accidentals (such as Saggital notation: http://www.sagittal.org/ ) or numbers indicating cents plus or minus. If you’re composing for a sonome or a Harry Partch marimba, you might want something more instrument-specific.
In practice, ad hoc solutions are often the most practical.
Cool stuff and great write up Peter—especially pointing out the industry connections and that Mr. Berkovitz has experience in the soupy web that is getting things done at the W3C. And I totally agree on the web being the perfect opportunity to expand beyond western notation.
I’m glad they are tackling this. There are other ways to visually represent western music than standard notation and having a W3C standard will encourage display hacking. Ran across this article on Medium a couple of weeks ago and seems an appropriate place to share it: https://medium.com/happy-ninja/how-i-d-redesign-piano-sheet-music-355c4f9012f1
Cool article. I think traditional sheet music leaves a lot to be desired. I prefer the standard midi note grid found in most DAW’s.
When I think about traditional notation it makes me feel like its best left to the academics in love with the sound of their own voice who may prefer talking about music then creating it. Did I just say that out loud! he he
Actually it is a much needed standard for many reasons. 😉
Yes, but then a standard grid gets diffic–
Hold on, rather than reconstruct the entire history of music notation, let’s just say this: it solves problems a perfectly proportional grid may not, and a whole bunch of people already read it. And the vast majority of them *aren’t* academics. 😉
I totally agree with you, but you have to admit it is somewhat archaic. Take for instance, what is the notation symbol for reverb goes here.
Also one question just because I am curious. Is there notation or symbols for world scales? Can you switch to a Balinese scale in western built software?
PS .. I actually love listening to leonard bernstein talk about music.
Leonard Bernstein The unanswered question https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntmTQ8J7m5Y
Okay, so let’s take India, Indonesia, and China as examples – and they’re three fast-growing populations.
Of course, this turns out to be actually a lot easier than the Western-derived notational problems described above.
All three in their classical traditions use primarily aural/rote transmission. When they are notated, the most common systems are cipher systems – you just need numbers, and those are really easy to encode.
I guess therefore what I’m really asking is to expand the discussion of how music might be transmitted on the Web. The goals here specifically refer to Western music notation; so it’s a matter of actually just opening up this question to lots of different musicians (wherever they might be) and finding out.
This turned into a fairly interesting conversation. I really appreciate the concise answer Peter. Micro-tuning and pitch-bend cover non-western scales as far as midi is concerned. I was curious how it works with notation.. thanks for the answer. From the way you describe it sounds doable but I wonder what kind of workflow someone is looking at. I have been doing a lot of music recently that use’s per note pitch-bends and portamento slides into new scales. Bitwig has the pitch per note thing and we are also entering an era where one song can be played in multiple different ways at different speeds as you have made us aware in recent articles. Also … isn’t the new midi standard almost here? Anyhow, very interesting topic.
The microtonal/xenharmonic community has never settled on a notation standard, although many systems have been proposed.
If you want to score to reflect the composer’s intent, it makes a big difference whether the piece is written within just intonation, an equal temperament or subset thereof, a historical or non-western tuning, or some other paradigm altogether.
In many cases there are instrument specific requirements. If your piece requires a traditionally-trained saxophonist or violist you might want to use standard notation with special accidentals (such as Saggital notation: http://www.sagittal.org/ ) or numbers indicating cents plus or minus. If you’re composing for a sonome or a Harry Partch marimba, you might want something more instrument-specific.
In practice, ad hoc solutions are often the most practical.
Cool stuff and great write up Peter—especially pointing out the industry connections and that Mr. Berkovitz has experience in the soupy web that is getting things done at the W3C. And I totally agree on the web being the perfect opportunity to expand beyond western notation.
I’m glad they are tackling this. There are other ways to visually represent western music than standard notation and having a W3C standard will encourage display hacking. Ran across this article on Medium a couple of weeks ago and seems an appropriate place to share it: https://medium.com/happy-ninja/how-i-d-redesign-piano-sheet-music-355c4f9012f1
Cool article. I think traditional sheet music leaves a lot to be desired. I prefer the standard midi note grid found in most DAW’s.
When I think about traditional notation it makes me feel like its best left to the academics in love with the sound of their own voice who may prefer talking about music then creating it. Did I just say that out loud! he he
Actually it is a much needed standard for many reasons. 😉
Yes, but then a standard grid gets diffic–
Hold on, rather than reconstruct the entire history of music notation, let’s just say this: it solves problems a perfectly proportional grid may not, and a whole bunch of people already read it. And the vast majority of them *aren’t* academics. 😉
I totally agree with you, but you have to admit it is somewhat archaic. Take for instance, what is the notation symbol for reverb goes here.
Also one question just because I am curious. Is there notation or symbols for world scales? Can you switch to a Balinese scale in western built software?
PS .. I actually love listening to leonard bernstein talk about music.
Leonard Bernstein The unanswered question https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntmTQ8J7m5Y
Okay, so let’s take India, Indonesia, and China as examples – and they’re three fast-growing populations.
Of course, this turns out to be actually a lot easier than the Western-derived notational problems described above.
All three in their classical traditions use primarily aural/rote transmission. When they are notated, the most common systems are cipher systems – you just need numbers, and those are really easy to encode.
I guess therefore what I’m really asking is to expand the discussion of how music might be transmitted on the Web. The goals here specifically refer to Western music notation; so it’s a matter of actually just opening up this question to lots of different musicians (wherever they might be) and finding out.
This turned into a fairly interesting conversation. I really appreciate the concise answer Peter. Micro-tuning and pitch-bend cover non-western scales as far as midi is concerned. I was curious how it works with notation.. thanks for the answer. From the way you describe it sounds doable but I wonder what kind of workflow someone is looking at. I have been doing a lot of music recently that use’s per note pitch-bends and portamento slides into new scales. Bitwig has the pitch per note thing and we are also entering an era where one song can be played in multiple different ways at different speeds as you have made us aware in recent articles. Also … isn’t the new midi standard almost here? Anyhow, very interesting topic.
The microtonal/xenharmonic community has never settled on a notation standard, although many systems have been proposed.
If you want to score to reflect the composer’s intent, it makes a big difference whether the piece is written within just intonation, an equal temperament or subset thereof, a historical or non-western tuning, or some other paradigm altogether.
In many cases there are instrument specific requirements. If your piece requires a traditionally-trained saxophonist or violist you might want to use standard notation with special accidentals (such as Saggital notation: http://www.sagittal.org/ ) or numbers indicating cents plus or minus. If you’re composing for a sonome or a Harry Partch marimba, you might want something more instrument-specific.
In practice, ad hoc solutions are often the most practical.
This is excellent news for us little guys in the online music-notation space who have worried about the fact that MusicXML and SMuFL were owned by powerful private companies. Hooray for openness!
In case you haven’t come across MusicXML, check out the free, web-based viewer we recently released at Soundslice: https://www.soundslice.com/musicxml-viewer/
This is excellent news for us little guys in the online music-notation space who have worried about the fact that MusicXML and SMuFL were owned by powerful private companies. Hooray for openness!
In case you haven’t come across MusicXML, check out the free, web-based viewer we recently released at Soundslice: https://www.soundslice.com/musicxml-viewer/
This is excellent news for us little guys in the online music-notation space who have worried about the fact that MusicXML and SMuFL were owned by powerful private companies. Hooray for openness!
In case you haven’t come across MusicXML, check out the free, web-based viewer we recently released at Soundslice: https://www.soundslice.com/musicxml-viewer/
no sorry, ain’t gonna happen, unless control and automation info gets added, piano and fotissimo ain’t gonna cut it for electronic music production.
no sorry, ain’t gonna happen, unless control and automation info gets added, piano and fotissimo ain’t gonna cut it for electronic music production.
no sorry, ain’t gonna happen, unless control and automation info gets added, piano and fotissimo ain’t gonna cut it for electronic music production.
notation is def a cool thing to know and much respected. but im not really interested in it. but then again im a space cadet.
notation is def a cool thing to know and much respected. but im not really interested in it. but then again im a space cadet.
notation is def a cool thing to know and much respected. but im not really interested in it. but then again im a space cadet.
Interesting article Peter ! However as somebody who both is fluent in notation (ten years of violin playing and studying jazz on guitar) as well as being plenty fluent in language of’midi’ control, i do think that notation in its conventional form will never suffice to accurately describe what electronic music composition is about. It certainly is great for describing notes and keys but does not describe sound changes over time, which is an important part of electronic music since it is an important writing dimension..as important as notes imho. A combination of both world would maybe be best.
Interesting article Peter ! However as somebody who both is fluent in notation (ten years of violin playing and studying jazz on guitar) as well as being plenty fluent in language of’midi’ control, i do think that notation in its conventional form will never suffice to accurately describe what electronic music composition is about. It certainly is great for describing notes and keys but does not describe sound changes over time, which is an important part of electronic music since it is an important writing dimension..as important as notes imho. A combination of both world would maybe be best.
Interesting article Peter ! However as somebody who both is fluent in notation (ten years of violin playing and studying jazz on guitar) as well as being plenty fluent in language of’midi’ control, i do think that notation in its conventional form will never suffice to accurately describe what electronic music composition is about. It certainly is great for describing notes and keys but does not describe sound changes over time, which is an important part of electronic music since it is an important writing dimension..as important as notes imho. A combination of both world would maybe be best.
“Music notation standards also should consider a non-Western perspective.” Yes!
“Music notation standards also should consider a non-Western perspective.” Yes!
“Music notation standards also should consider a non-Western perspective.” Yes!
I think some good points have been brought up, but I’ll just repeat one. When we say “western” music notation, we’re actually referring to notation derived from western classical music. The notation that many readers of this site are probably more familiar with (piano roll, velocity, cc envelopes) is also “western” in origin I believe.
Classical music notation is good for encoding music for human performance. There are many subtleties of performance not written on the page that skilled players know how to interpret in a meaningful way. At the moment, computers don’t *usually* interpret the scores, they usually have a 1:1 correspondence to midi notes. So classical notation is actually less expressive currently for computers (as has been mentioned before, imagine having to draw all your automation curves on a score, it’s a square peg in a round hole).
So it seems like a web standard for encoding music should at least have some type of straightforward representation of the type of music that you can play through an actual browser, digital music.
No, that’s correct, and to be sure – saying Western music notation doesn’t necessarily mean Western music. That said, the use case / market here does primarily focus on that and it’s not the only notational system in current use – not by a long shot.
What I will say is, I’m not quite sure what you’re describing. We’re assuming generally notation for realization by musicians on instruments. Any open-ended graphic system should actually be defined by other means (and it’s not hard to do so with a browser, actually).
Fair enough. I guess I was just trying to highlight how programs such as Sibelius and Finale often bring sampling/synthesis into the composing process with realtime playback of scores. In my experience, that leads sometimes to an awkward situation where you want to write more notation then you would want for a human reading the score such that the computer plays it right (Where even a cc envelope can get you more at what you want since the artistic interpretation of the computer is still lacking). If they’re making a new web standard, it seems like it would be nice if it could take that into account somehow.
I think some good points have been brought up, but I’ll just repeat one. When we say “western” music notation, we’re actually referring to notation derived from western classical music. The notation that many readers of this site are probably more familiar with (piano roll, velocity, cc envelopes) is also “western” in origin I believe.
Classical music notation is good for encoding music for human performance. There are many subtleties of performance not written on the page that skilled players know how to interpret in a meaningful way. At the moment, computers don’t *usually* interpret the scores, they usually have a 1:1 correspondence to midi notes. So classical notation is actually less expressive currently for computers (as has been mentioned before, imagine having to draw all your automation curves on a score, it’s a square peg in a round hole).
So it seems like a web standard for encoding music should at least have some type of straightforward representation of the type of music that you can play through an actual browser, digital music.
No, that’s correct, and to be sure – saying Western music notation doesn’t necessarily mean Western music. That said, the use case / market here does primarily focus on that and it’s not the only notational system in current use – not by a long shot.
What I will say is, I’m not quite sure what you’re describing. We’re assuming generally notation for realization by musicians on instruments. Any open-ended graphic system should actually be defined by other means (and it’s not hard to do so with a browser, actually).
Fair enough. I guess I was just trying to highlight how programs such as Sibelius and Finale often bring sampling/synthesis into the composing process with realtime playback of scores. In my experience, that leads sometimes to an awkward situation where you want to write more notation then you would want for a human reading the score such that the computer plays it right (Where even a cc envelope can get you more at what you want since the artistic interpretation of the computer is still lacking). If they’re making a new web standard, it seems like it would be nice if it could take that into account somehow.
I think some good points have been brought up, but I’ll just repeat one. When we say “western” music notation, we’re actually referring to notation derived from western classical music. The notation that many readers of this site are probably more familiar with (piano roll, velocity, cc envelopes) is also “western” in origin I believe.
Classical music notation is good for encoding music for human performance. There are many subtleties of performance not written on the page that skilled players know how to interpret in a meaningful way. At the moment, computers don’t *usually* interpret the scores, they usually have a 1:1 correspondence to midi notes. So classical notation is actually less expressive currently for computers (as has been mentioned before, imagine having to draw all your automation curves on a score, it’s a square peg in a round hole).
So it seems like a web standard for encoding music should at least have some type of straightforward representation of the type of music that you can play through an actual browser, digital music.
No, that’s correct, and to be sure – saying Western music notation doesn’t necessarily mean Western music. That said, the use case / market here does primarily focus on that and it’s not the only notational system in current use – not by a long shot.
What I will say is, I’m not quite sure what you’re describing. We’re assuming generally notation for realization by musicians on instruments. Any open-ended graphic system should actually be defined by other means (and it’s not hard to do so with a browser, actually).
Fair enough. I guess I was just trying to highlight how programs such as Sibelius and Finale often bring sampling/synthesis into the composing process with realtime playback of scores. In my experience, that leads sometimes to an awkward situation where you want to write more notation then you would want for a human reading the score such that the computer plays it right (Where even a cc envelope can get you more at what you want since the artistic interpretation of the computer is still lacking). If they’re making a new web standard, it seems like it would be nice if it could take that into account somehow.
No mention of MuseScore? https://musescore.org/en/node/71346#comment-326666
I’d very much like to see anyone associated with the open tools get involved, so wholeheartedly endorse that post. I didn’t mention it because it wasn’t part of this launch post (which did see PR from Steinberg, Hal Leonard, at least in my inbox…)
No mention of MuseScore? https://musescore.org/en/node/71346#comment-326666
I’d very much like to see anyone associated with the open tools get involved, so wholeheartedly endorse that post. I didn’t mention it because it wasn’t part of this launch post (which did see PR from Steinberg, Hal Leonard, at least in my inbox…)
No mention of MuseScore? https://musescore.org/en/node/71346#comment-326666
I’d very much like to see anyone associated with the open tools get involved, so wholeheartedly endorse that post. I didn’t mention it because it wasn’t part of this launch post (which did see PR from Steinberg, Hal Leonard, at least in my inbox…)
When I first read about how much time Conlon Nancarrow spent writing
scores after the fact — decoding the punched holes — for his player piano studies, I thought that was
a tragic waste of time. Computers were coming along that could
automatically transcribe his music.
It turns out that I was
thinking like a complete technologist. Reading the introduction by James
Tenney to the most recent CD set, I realized that a important function
of his scores were to separate out the various voices interacting with
each other within the sea of piano notes, and to show the temporal
relationships between voices within canons, which could be related by
ratios of irrational numbers or which could involve voices accelerating
or decelerating at different rates.
He wrote his scores so that other composers and musicologist could analyze his music according to his compositional intent. As it turns out, musicians have been able to use his scores to perform transcriptions of his player piano studies with the aid of modern click track technology.
What I’m getting at is that a score standard needs to be open-ended enough to accommodate musical innovations and flexible enough to fulfill the various purposes for which a score is intended.
When I first read about how much time Conlon Nancarrow spent writing
scores after the fact — decoding the punched holes — for his player piano studies, I thought that was
a tragic waste of time. Computers were coming along that could
automatically transcribe his music.
It turns out that I was
thinking like a complete technologist. Reading the introduction by James
Tenney to the most recent CD set, I realized that a important function
of his scores were to separate out the various voices interacting with
each other within the sea of piano notes, and to show the temporal
relationships between voices within canons, which could be related by
ratios of irrational numbers or which could involve voices accelerating
or decelerating at different rates.
He wrote his scores so that other composers and musicologist could analyze his music according to his compositional intent. As it turns out, musicians have been able to use his scores to perform transcriptions of his player piano studies with the aid of modern click track technology.
What I’m getting at is that a score standard needs to be open-ended enough to accommodate musical innovations and flexible enough to fulfill the various purposes for which a score is intended.
When I first read about how much time Conlon Nancarrow spent writing
scores after the fact — decoding the punched holes — for his player piano studies, I thought that was
a tragic waste of time. Computers were coming along that could
automatically transcribe his music.
It turns out that I was
thinking like a complete technologist. Reading the introduction by James
Tenney to the most recent CD set, I realized that a important function
of his scores were to separate out the various voices interacting with
each other within the sea of piano notes, and to show the temporal
relationships between voices within canons, which could be related by
ratios of irrational numbers or which could involve voices accelerating
or decelerating at different rates.
He wrote his scores so that other composers and musicologist could analyze his music according to his compositional intent. As it turns out, musicians have been able to use his scores to perform transcriptions of his player piano studies with the aid of modern click track technology.
What I’m getting at is that a score standard needs to be open-ended enough to accommodate musical innovations and flexible enough to fulfill the various purposes for which a score is intended.
This is indeed great news! We are super excited about being able to be a part of this!
Both MusicXML and SMuFL is a big part of what we do at http://scorecloud.com
This is indeed great news! We are super excited about being able to be a part of this!
Both MusicXML and SMuFL is a big part of what we do at http://scorecloud.com
This is indeed great news! We are super excited about being able to be a part of this!
Both MusicXML and SMuFL is a big part of what we do at http://scorecloud.com