notation
Praise for the open meter and key
03/05/20 11:55 Filed in: Creative Work
One of the most common criticism moved to Dorico is that new documents are not in 4/4 meter and in C Major. They are in an open meter and key.
In my view, this is one of the strongest points in Dorico, and one of the most innovative. I liked it immensely in Igor Engraver, and am immensely happy to find it again.
From the point of view of a student or beginner, having a blank staff is highly educative, since it forces one to learn how to choose the right meter and key. It is not a given, it has to be carefully considered. Having it ready is easier? It depends on the target. If someone only needs a way to transcribe a simple tune, maybe a program as complex as Dorico Pro is not the right one.
For someone writing music in the 'academic' styles since the 20th century (including much film music), having a blank staff is liberating. The idea of 'flow' is at the basis of Dorico, and flow is not only the name of one of the structural elements: it's the deep philosophy of this program. Music flows. You are free to give it a measure, design patterns. But, at the basis, it is a free flow in time.
In my view, this is one of the strongest points in Dorico, and one of the most innovative. I liked it immensely in Igor Engraver, and am immensely happy to find it again.
From the point of view of a student or beginner, having a blank staff is highly educative, since it forces one to learn how to choose the right meter and key. It is not a given, it has to be carefully considered. Having it ready is easier? It depends on the target. If someone only needs a way to transcribe a simple tune, maybe a program as complex as Dorico Pro is not the right one.
For someone writing music in the 'academic' styles since the 20th century (including much film music), having a blank staff is liberating. The idea of 'flow' is at the basis of Dorico, and flow is not only the name of one of the structural elements: it's the deep philosophy of this program. Music flows. You are free to give it a measure, design patterns. But, at the basis, it is a free flow in time.
Incommunicable microtuning
Not many DAWs, notation programs, players, virtual synths and sound libraries allow for alternative tuning and microtonal accidentals. Some allow them, but then are unable to communicate to other software the altered notes.
For example, a DAW or music program may allow for microtonal accidentals, but then send out a message that most sound players can't understand (like VST Note Expression vs MIDI Tuning Standard).
Alternative tuning is useful for music in non-Western standards (Post-Minimalism meets Ancient India). Or for ancient music (for example, tuning a harpsichord to match a lute). Or for experimental music (Harry Partch-inspired microtuning scales, or the mystical Pythagorean tuning).
Microtonal accidentals are used in much contemporary music or hybrid music, but also to transcribe as finely as possible folk music. Some experimental rock/EDM is using clusters, and going over the walls of the Equal tempered system.
Yet, not all the DAWs, notation programs, and sound generators can communicate their alternative tuning and exoteric accidentals. A world open to the world in theory, but less in practice.
For example, a DAW or music program may allow for microtonal accidentals, but then send out a message that most sound players can't understand (like VST Note Expression vs MIDI Tuning Standard).
Alternative tuning is useful for music in non-Western standards (Post-Minimalism meets Ancient India). Or for ancient music (for example, tuning a harpsichord to match a lute). Or for experimental music (Harry Partch-inspired microtuning scales, or the mystical Pythagorean tuning).
Microtonal accidentals are used in much contemporary music or hybrid music, but also to transcribe as finely as possible folk music. Some experimental rock/EDM is using clusters, and going over the walls of the Equal tempered system.
Yet, not all the DAWs, notation programs, and sound generators can communicate their alternative tuning and exoteric accidentals. A world open to the world in theory, but less in practice.
Composing at the sequencer or notation software
19/09/19 23:01 Filed in: Creative Work
If you are like, a considerable amount of time is spent, before even touching a key, to decide if the project has to be done in a sequencer/DAW software, or a score notation program. If you can’t read written music, there is only a choice. If you can, you are falling between two stools, torn between two possible choices.
In general, I tend to go for a sequencer when I have to write for visual media, or to create a credible mockup of classical music. If I have to compose something in a style that implies sophisticate notation craft, I go for the notation software. If you are like me, you know that a written page of music is something more than music – it is an art in itself, where the composed symbols on the page translate into performed music, and are never just a mere transcription of resounding music.
There are situations where the choice continues to be hard. Hybrid scores, for example, might require so much realtime control, that notation software may lack the needed tools. Sibelius, for example, allows for MIDI controls written over the score. Handy, if all you have to do is to send an articulation switch here and there. Not much so, if you have to control the hectic filter opening or a synthesizer.
Dorico seems to promise to be the best of both worlds. As a notation program, it thinks are a contemporary composer does, with an innate flexibility in recording, transcription, separate editing of the two parallel graphic and performance layers. And then actual playback. As a sequencer, it has a clever piano roll page, where you can access notes as two overlapping layers (graphic; performance), running next to lines representing MIDI controllers and a lane with articulation changes.
Still, I feel that a sequencer will continue to be my preferred tool to model sound as clay; and notation software will mostly serve for art music, where either real performers are involved, or the graphic art is simply too important to leave it to a bare Score page in software conceived for noisier music.
In general, I tend to go for a sequencer when I have to write for visual media, or to create a credible mockup of classical music. If I have to compose something in a style that implies sophisticate notation craft, I go for the notation software. If you are like me, you know that a written page of music is something more than music – it is an art in itself, where the composed symbols on the page translate into performed music, and are never just a mere transcription of resounding music.
There are situations where the choice continues to be hard. Hybrid scores, for example, might require so much realtime control, that notation software may lack the needed tools. Sibelius, for example, allows for MIDI controls written over the score. Handy, if all you have to do is to send an articulation switch here and there. Not much so, if you have to control the hectic filter opening or a synthesizer.
Dorico seems to promise to be the best of both worlds. As a notation program, it thinks are a contemporary composer does, with an innate flexibility in recording, transcription, separate editing of the two parallel graphic and performance layers. And then actual playback. As a sequencer, it has a clever piano roll page, where you can access notes as two overlapping layers (graphic; performance), running next to lines representing MIDI controllers and a lane with articulation changes.
Still, I feel that a sequencer will continue to be my preferred tool to model sound as clay; and notation software will mostly serve for art music, where either real performers are involved, or the graphic art is simply too important to leave it to a bare Score page in software conceived for noisier music.