Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
hel Aberdein
7713QCM
Assignment 1
Rachel Aberdein
1883260
2
Rachel Aberdein
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
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
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
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-
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
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
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
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
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
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
Other time-savers are the copy/paste and drag/drop functions offered by many programmes. As
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”
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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