« A&HM 4029 Spring 2008: Question #5 | Main | A&HM 4029 Spring 2008: Question #7 - Wiki »
A&HM 4029 Spring 2008: Question #6
By jamesfrankel | March 31, 2008
What are the issues concerning notation software in regard to the composition process, and what are your opinions about those issues?
Topics: Main Page |
March 31st, 2008 at 3:32 pm
My frustration with notation software has always been the issues associated with using it with students for original compositions. For my own personal arranging and composing, I find it extremely helpful and time efficient (especially when I learn shortcuts!). Unfortunately, it takes a lot of time in a middle school choral or general music setting to not only teach the software, but make sure each student has learned the necessary music literacy skills to effectively use that software for composition. In that way, notation software can actually prove to be stifling for the young composer. Their notation knowledge and “skills” are way below the composition ideas that they are able to generate at this age. It reminds me of Csikszentmihalyi’s notion of flow (when your ability level meets the level of the challenge) – something that I am not sure my middle school students would be able to achieve in using standard notation software composition. If they could only produce what their literacy level allows, not what they actually want to hear, would it actually be a more frustrating process for my students rather than a fulfilling one?
April 6th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
It’s difficult to answer this question without classroom experience using technology as a composition tool. I have used Dr. Pogonowski’s “creative strategy” with young elementary-age children, with good results. Children were able to compose and improvise with no knowledge of theory whatsoever. It was a wonderful, tactile, empowering experience. We used small groups, and everyone had an instrument. With regard to some of the software we’ve used in Dr. Frankel’s class, I’m wondering if the instant success the children would have, might make them not want to do the hard work of learning to play a real instrument. But, on the other hand, it might motivate them.
With regard to middle and high school students, experience on notation software like Sibelius might be frustrating without knowing any theory. On the other hand, there were no “theory” classes in Bach’s day—composers just went by what sounded right to them. I have a feeling that strict constructivism in this regard might be like what happens when I’ve worked with children who’ve learned strict constructivist math. They don’t know the times tables, and get frustrated because their computation skills are so slow. They ask for calculators, and are nearly helpless without them—counting on their fingers at ten and eleven years old. So, maybe some “discovery” time with notation software could be balanced with some theory study. The kids could take or leave the theory, but at least the building blocks would be there should they choose to use them.
April 6th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
I feel that learning how to read music and composing are two separate skills. Composing is capturing a feeling, an emotion, a thought, idea, while notation is a means of communicating that idea for someone else. When someone reads something that is notated, they are trying to recapture the emotion of the composer when he or she wrote the piece. Notation is important because without it, there would be no transmission of the creation; there would be no way to document it. However, I think that kids should compose before they master notation. I myself was and continue to be intimidated by composition because the notation process can be so tedious, even now. I embrace any software that can make composition speedier to notate, but I also embrace software that encourages composition before mastering the art of notation. Even by using notation software, students can learn how to notate by visually seeing how it works, for example, when they play into the keyboard and see what comes up.I agree with Emy’s comment about not replacing skills with dependency on machines. The students should continue to work on theory, but it should not inhibit composing.
April 6th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Finale Notepad and Sybellius are both wonderful examples of notation software that can assist teachers and students in a music theory class. However, if students use this notation software, they might forget about the musical concepts necessary to understand music composition. For example, the notation software is designed so that when there is a full measure of the beat, the program automatically moves onto the next measure. No prior theoretical knowledge is required, so students can just pick the note and rhythmic values and then click and drag to compose music. While this may be an effective method to inspire young children to compose music without theory skills, the purpose of learning theory is to understand the musical concepts behind music composition. If the children get used to creating music without thinking about musical concepts, they will be missing out on other components that make the act of composing music interesting.
I am also concerned about this program’s ability to train teachers in how to use this notation software. In the 21st century, students know more about technology than their teachers. To teach students, teachers need to know how to use this software and then be able to explain to their students how to use it. Unfortunately, most of the teachers are afraid of technology and may not want to learn how to use it. Teachers should be encouraged to participate in professional development such as seminars and conferences to learn about new software. After all, technology does not mean anything unless it is used in the classroom and introduced to the students.
Technology should provide students with learning tools; it is improving rapidly, and students need correct guidance to understand how to use different programs. Teachers should guide the students by being aware of updated technologies.
April 6th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Composition is a process is a personal experience for students. My opinion of composition is very firm in that i believe that instruments should be used to create musical compositions. Music Software takes away from hands-on experience with making music. Most of the composers today still handwrite their composition. PLaying it on the piano or other instruments and transfer to paper. However with music technology it can be used as a tool for reinforcing arranging, composing and improvisation. Eric Whitacre who is a composer uses a keyboard that uses a notation software to write down everything he plays. BUT he is still using an instrument to compose. So yes notation software is very helpful ti can show students how to create scores and parts for their compositions. It can reinforce learning of notation. But it cannot create the aesthetic experience of playing on a instrument.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
The issue concerning about notation software in regards to composing process is whether it is necessary that students need to have the basic theory knowledge to be able to compose on the notation software. In my opinion, I find that notation software is not helpful in learning how to compose and for students to be able to use notation software, they will need to have the basic theory knowledge. Without any understanding of the basic music theories students would not know where to start or how to start composing on the notation software unless given specific rules or guidelines by the teacher. However, notation software makes composing much more convenient for students who have acquired the skills necessary to compose to create the type of music they want.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Diane Scanlon question #6
As I have mentioned in my previous postings, I am not a classroom teacher therefore my opinions are based on my private guitar instructions and working with young aspiring songwriters.
Because my student’s musical literacy spans the spectrum of never reading notes on a staff to years of private tuition, I have had the opportunity to observe how varied the process of composition is for my students. What I have found is that music literacy/notation has little to do with the process of creativity. I have witnessed students with minimal skills write a song that not only empowers them but impresses me. If I had instructed this student to start writing a song by opening up a notation software and inserting notes on a staff the song would not exist– the moment would be lost.
Most of my students are 10- 18 (although I do have a handful of adults) and are approaching music with curiosity and passion. With very little technique and theory, they will dive into an amazing stream of self-expression. It is a joy to watch and I can see that it is very empowering for them. As a teacher I believe that each student brings with them a unique history of music: the lullabies of early childhood, music steeped in ethnic tradition, and music indicative of their foothold on the continuum of pop music and pop culture. Most importantly they bring with them their subconscious feeling about their life. If I, as a teacher, can facilitate an environment in my music studio where a student feels free to express himself or herself in an original composition, I have brought that student closer to a curiosity about the fundamentals of music.
Having expressed my constructivist perspective on composition I must now admit that I believe Sibelius to be an extremely important tool. After a student has written their piece we will write it in notation form. This is where I experience the great “ah-hay, so that’s what my song looks like”. Now I have a context to where we can begin to understand notation and learn musical literacy.
April 7th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Notation software to me is akin to Microsoft word for writing music. In Word you are not taught how to write, but are given clues on how to polish the presentation of your writing through spelling and grammar checks. We all know that this is no substitute for solid knowledge of grammar and spelling. It is a tool to make our communication more accessible.
Music notation software works in the same way. It is not a substitute for learning the rules of composition, meter, melody, etc. It can only assist and enhance your knowledge and make your compositions more accessible to others. It is not meant to take the humanity out of music. It is an assistant to our creative endeavors.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
I guess my main frustration with notation software comes from the need to have technical mastery of notation to effectively use it. I am of the firm belief that students should compose way before they have mastered notation, and this can limit students’ use of such a program.
I feel that as students learn about reading music, they should compose within those parameters. For example, when my recorder students learn to play B, A, and G, I then ask them to compose using those three pitches as well as using rhythm patterns that they are familiar with. As their knowledge grows, their parameters extend until they are reaching a better understanding of notation. For my purposes, it would take far too much time to teach my young students the notation software for them to use it effectively.
Once students have reached a level of understanding of notation, I think that notation software can be a great tool, and be used with great success.
April 7th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
In my opinion, the notation software is quite successful to make composition to be more accessible; especially those students who has less musical background. Especially when the person was to arrange the songs, notation software enables us to hear what the music is alike when it is played by various instruments. It has various drills and lesson plans which make our job to be handy as well. However, I do have a critical concern in notation software: it should have recovering functions like Microsoft words. Several days ago, I got very upset because all my sibelius homework got erased and I was never able to recover them back. So basically, I spent two hours notating it, and suddenly the files were never backed-up after the program got frozen. If this were to be my creative work, I can’t imagine how I should redo all my work again, or to even remember them back. I believe the truth is that a lot of composers are still relying on handwritings because of the lack of the system that notation software has. I like the outlook of the score and all of the other cool functions in the notational software. However, I believe that the practical improvement needs to be made so that someday all the musicians are comfortable using the notational software.
April 7th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
For my own personal use, software such as Sibelius is a great tool. I have been using it for a long time to create scales, exercises, little pieces and arrangements. It is useful because you can cater to what the needs of your students. I have not taught my students how to compose using notation software. Therefore, I wouldn’t know how the process would be like. I think one of the issues is teaching students the basics before composing. In a long run, I think it is important for them to know music literacy skills. It would make the process easier for them. You could write music without being able to read notes or understand the rhythm. However, it would be much more efficient in many ways if they had the basic literacy skills in music.
I do think that as a teacher, you want to foster the creativity and love for creating your own music in your students from when they are young. You want to give them the hands on experiences. That’s why I like software such as Sibelius Groovy or other software that were introduced that doesn’t use notes. It lets young children get into it and have fun with it without worrying about the notes and rhythms.
However, at certain point, it is important for them to be able to read the notes and understand how to transform their ideas into a piece of music most effectively. It is easier to know exactly what note you want to put in rather than searching through what note you are humming. I think creating a melody can start without knowing notes. But, to notate the melody, to make it easier for the students themselves, it would help if they knew the notation.
Ai
April 8th, 2008 at 12:34 am
The positive thing about notation software is that the students can create music quickly and efficiently and they can play back quickly what they written. This software program allows the students to be creative and it gives them freedom to experiment with many different instruments.
The negative thing about this program is tat learning the software program is difficult and time consuming. The greater number of program makes this problem worst. The second problem is that one’s the software is learned it could be overused and discourage the students from actually becoming proficient edit instruments and mastering theory.
April 14th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Honestly, notation software irritates me just a little. Not because I find it difficult to teach (even though it can be), not because a level of musical expertise is required in order to fully comprehend what is being composed, but because I feel like I wasted years of my undergrad experience perfecting that round little circle and stem. I was interested in the aesthetics. Anyway, as frustrating as it can be to enhance the compositional process through notation I believe it must be done. I feel like we are losing the interest of students concerning a “notated musical future” (for lack of a better term) that encouraging it is extremely important. It is our responsibility as educators to cater to everyone’s intelligence and make sure that students get what they need instead of what we are willing to offer. Is it necessary to learn how to read notes in order to compose? That depends on the student. I just feel like I am in a state of whatever needs to be done should be done in order to maintain and enhance the creative musical experience.
April 21st, 2008 at 11:24 am
I think Maureen really nails it with her observation that music notation software is analogous to word processing software. She argues “We all know that this is no substitute for solid knowledge of grammar and spelling. It is a tool to make our communication more accessible.” I couldn’t agree more, but let’s step back for a second and consider the impact that word processing has had on the print world. Before the 1980s you needed a typewriter or professional typesetter/printer to have your words immortalized into print. Today, nearly everything is printed and handwriting is falling out of practice (at least mine is) and becoming a lost art. The question of whether one mode is necessarily supportive of the intellectual process of choosing words and sequencing them into sentences and paragraphs, seems moot to me. Despite my weak and unpolished handwriting, I can use a pencil, or for that matter, a can of spray-cheese as a mode of rendering the words that I have composed or written into print. I am tempted to suspect that the same would hold true for the process of music composition; as the composer renders his or her musical ideas with music notation software.
For argument’s sake, let’s consider the idea that the myriad disciplines surrounding and supporting the art of manual notation may indirectly support and perhaps provide cognitive triggers for the internal creative process of composition. One could argue that manual notation requires and exercises a higher level of precision, certainty and overall sophistication of inner ear skills than its electronic counterpart. Perhaps this headier and more arithmetic process may resonate more with musical mind than the digital hunting and pecking of composers untrained in these crafts. Perhaps the old way of doing things required more forethought and certainty. After all, it only takes a few seconds to enter a chord progression into Sibelius. But some Hollywood copyists and orchestrators I know actually work faster by hand.
To investigate this, I challenged my friend composer John Cacavass to dual between his pencil and manuscript and my laptop running Sibelius. John is an old-school band arranger and composer who specializes in the old fashioned Broadway orchestra sound. He wrote most of the underscoring for the series “Kojak” in the 1970s. The challenge was spontaneously agreed upon based on the material we had handy at the moment. We would have two minutes to get as far as we could copying a Bach invention. When the two minutes were up, he had jotted down the first five systems. I was still entering the first motive. Ahh, the taste of dust. My only response to this was that the test wasn’t fair since he has 35 more years experience than I do. But I wonder what would have happened if I spent an afternoon teaching him Sibelius and then I took the pencil/paper side of the dual. My guess is that he would still win, no matter what side he was on. Why? Because he simply “thinks” in notation. For me, as much as I have tried, notation is not my primary mode of musical thinking.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
After learning and understanding the function of notation software, the composition process might need to be rethought and redefined. Traditional composition needs to possess a lot of musical knowledge and skill whereas modern composition using notation software does not. Facing this phenomenon, we all have to think of whether musical knowledge and composition skill are absolutely necessary to the composition process. In my opinion, I always believe that a composer needs good thought to create and good skill to compose a good musical work. A musical work composed without musical skill may be a good work but has no strong foundation. Therefore, I thought musical knowledge and composition skill are necessary for composers but unnecessary for the composition process. Notation software can be a very useful tool to help composers to compose easily.