Have an uncommon yule with tools and music from the Commons.

That’s the pitch (so to speak) of the Ultimate Christmas Songbook, an iPad app built with 50 Christmas songs and a fully free and open source notation engine. Making use of public domain songs, the number of songs available continues to grow as the community contributes tunes. (Those contributors got the app for free.)

As notation proliferates on tablets, the app also suggests that “commercial” doesn’t have to mean “closed.” The scores themselves are available in open, cross-platform formats (MIDI, MusicXML, MuseScore, and PDF). But by generating revenues, the app can support further development – something that’s often been missing in open source music software projects.

And if you’re looking for a way to help family and friends play music, and they have iPads, the score reading features are quite reasonable. You get lovely display of scores, audio playback, tempo change, transpose, and the all-important font resize with reflow so you don’t have to squint.

The app is on iOS now, but other platforms are planned; an Android version is already in testing. And we hear lots more is coming from MuseScore, too, hot on the heals of a release that earned half a million downloads:
A Christmas update from MuseScore

More resources:
Open source code for mscore at SourceForge
Contributed scores to download
Ultimate Christmas Songbook, US$1.99 at iTunes
http://musescore.com/, software and community, including the desktop software for Mac, Windows, and Linux

For reference, here’s a look at how the desktop software works:

Consumption, or creation?

When it comes to notation and musical scores, the iPad (and tablets, generally) has fallen on the side of reading rather than writing, display rather than creation.

Notion for iPad, a mobile version of the desktop notation software, looks poised to change all of that. See video, above, for an overview of the features. Highlights:

• Entry, editing, and playback for notation and guitar tab
• Built-in samples, including keys, guitar and bass, and the London Symphony Orchestra as recorded at Abbey Road Studios
• Enter notes by tapping a keyboard or 24-fret fretboard, or select and drag and drop
• Mixer and effects
• Orchestra and guitar articulations and marks
• Text/lyrics support
• Import MIDI, MusicXML, GuitarPro, and export to PDF, MusicXML, and MIDI
• Look for guitar tab, MIDI, and MusicXML right inside the app – this could be a huge feature

There are also in-app purchases of instruments and effects and so on.

It’s a big deal, I think, and a huge release. Even if you use software other than Notion on desktop, I can see this as – at last – a way for people comfortable with notation to sketch ideas and enter MIDI and scores from a music stand. I look forward to testing it. (Anyone know of any other candidates in this category? Since Sibelius focused on score reading, Notion seems to be the first major release of this kind for a tablet.)

Thanks to everyone who sent this in.

http://www.notionmusic.com/products/notionipad.html

By the way, what’s up with the lines at the end of the video?

You Honor Tradition!
You Defy Genre!
You The Create Future! [sic]

You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What would you do without freedom? Will you fight?

They may take our lives, but they will never take our freedom!

(Sorry, I may have broken into the speech from Braveheart there. It could be the London Symphony Orchestra music. Alba gu bra!)

Since today is Beethoven’s 241st birthday, it seems only appropriate to inject a little conventional notation into today’s coverage. And what better way to do that than with an iPad app that promises some musician-friendly reading features.

We’ve already looked a couple of times at Avid’s Sibelius-powered Scorch iPad reader, which features nice output and score integration, and recently added PDF support.

Scorecerer has some unique features – aside from, augh, a somewhat unpronounceable name. It goes further in page turn control, MIDI integration, and DAW integration (through MIDI program changes). A desktop version aids in scanned score management.

And it has two potentially killer features: one is the ability to manage converting your conventional notation to PDF, and the other is – at last – proper markup.

Run-down of features:

• Markup: highlight or add handwritten notes (why every app doesn’t include this, standard, I have no idea – it’s a deal-breaker without it.) See the video for more.
• Meet your MIDI page turner: Load songs, change pages, from any MIDI instrument – or send page turns from a DAW’s sequence playback (via a program change message) for automated page turns.
• Total page layout control: Arrange pages in an arbitrary sequence, so, for instance, repeats and DS al Coda sections simply repeat in front of you instead of requiring you to go back.
• Desktop PDF conversion: Scan images or import PDFs, straighten out crooked scans, remove borders, create lead sheets, all in a batch-conversion desktop management tool.
• Desktop Pro software: Add on this US$39.95 desktop companion, and you additionally get to publish scanned or imported music as a set of images, PDF, Kindle DX, or MusicPad Pro. (The free iPad edition only exports to the iPad.) You can also batch convert a stack of music – like an entire fake book – by splitting it into PDFs.

The emphasis on scanning and importing PDFs is a concession to the likely reality of iPad notation users. Simply put, you’re probably not going to use an iPad for notation unless you can make it useful with all the scores you’ve already got. Now, some of this batch processing I imagine could make publishers very nervous about piracy. But I still imagine that – as we saw with the combination of digital downloads and ripped CDs, only with yet-more-expansive collections – we’ll see a bit of each. (Selling scores online I still think will be a big market for publishers.)

But I just keep coming back to this: you have to have markup. And I look forward to watching tablet apps in general work to provide features that make them more usable to musicians.

More on the app:
http://www.deskew.com/

There’s a free, “Lite” version that you can try out first.

The full version is US$9.95.

Scorcerer @ iTunes App Store

Music notation software has long been seen as a two-horse race, a Pepsi versus Coke stand-off between Finale and Sibelius. But not only are there other alternatives, too, here’s one tool that’s making free and open source notation viable. I’ve spoken previously about engraving tool Lilypond, but it’s not entirely graphical, even with GUI front ends. MuseScore will look more familiar to users of something like Sibelius, and just as the latter released a major upgrade, it also had a big 1.1 release with major new enhancements.

MuseScore has a robust notation engine, capable feature set, and it’s even catching on in a number of academic institutions around the world. There’s an iPad-based score reader, which in turn is a revenue source (no reason open source software can’t generate income). You can enter music with keyboard, mouse, or MIDI, use the usual complement of symbols and layout features, and import and export both MusicXML and Standard MIDI files. You won’t find a big orchestral sample library as in Sibelius 7 and Finale’s Garritan-based sounds, but there’s still support for soft synth playback, and you can run for free on Mac, Windows, and Linux. It’s been translated into some 43 languages and counts more than 2500 downloads daily.

Given the coincidence of Sibelius and MuseScore getting their upgrades at the same time, I asked the MuseScore developers directly how they thought they compared. Let’s bring on the fighting words – after all, a little friendly competition drives better tools. (Ask the engineers on contests like Robot Wars.)

Improved interoperability also means you don’t have to choose sides. With MusicXML import/export in MuseScore and recently expanded in Sibelius 7, you can exchange files between the two tools – as you should. (After all, the whole point of notation is the ability for anyone to read it — for the exchange of ideas.)

First, here’s what’s new in MuseScore 1.1, with improvements like jazz and lead sheet functionality:

• Lead sheet enhancements, including MuseJazz jazz font, chord symbols on bars without notes, keyboard shortcuts for moving between bars, more chord symbols, and slash notation (via a plug-in) … see the beginner and advanced tutorials, and separate blog post.
• Connect is a Web-baed social feature for sharing scores, checking out tutorials, and following Twitter MuseScore discussion, all within the program. (Actually, I’m surprised more music software doesn’t do something like this.)
• Improved stability and reliability, including 60 bug fixes. To be honest, that’s probably what has held me back from spending much time with MuseScore, so I’m intrigued. This isn’t a review, but I’ll have to do some scoring work so I can try it out.

MuseScore isn’t as fully-functional as tools like Sibelius and Finale. For may purposes, it will do the job; it just lacks some of their maturity and extensive feature set, which means you should research its current features if you have particular notational needs. But that’s changing. On the roadmap for a more significant version 2.0 are critical notation features like tablature, and linked parts so you can edit music simultaneously in extracted parts and full score.

Sibelius versus MuseScore?

I asked MuseScore developer Thomas Bonte to follow up on how MuseScore relates to Sibelius with news of the two coinciding:

Well first off all, we have to be honest about it, Sibelius is a superb product. Many of my friends use it and I dropped the ambition to convert them to MuseScore However I learned that every year there is a new group of aspiring musicians following music education. The way we see it, is that MuseScore is growing up together with them.

MuseScore strongest selling proposition against Sibelius and others is it’s price: $0. While that seems an unbeatable price, MuseScore faces very steep competition from pirated versions of Sibelius or Finale. When I go around in music conservatories and I ask who has a legal version, only the teacher raises a hand. So MuseScore needs to do better than just the price and that’s where the Open Source kicks in.

If you look at it economically, it’s all about reducing production costs. Translations, documentation, import & export filters, plugins, … The only thing we (the core team) need to take care off is that the contributor community can work together. To facilitate this collaboration, we invested a tremendous amount of time in building a full featured community website on musescore.org using Drupal CMS. It is the main reason why the contributor community around MuseScore has doubled every release, up to 150 people for 1.0. You may have an open source project, but without people, that means nothing. And that’s how we really compete. With our community of contributors and users. The former improves the product, the latter does the promotion.

It’s just a matter of time before MuseScore can handle professional typesetting work. Via initiatives such as the Open Goldberg project, we want to show that MuseScore is getting ready for more demanding work.
Open Goldberg @ Kickstarter

One more thingy related to Sibelius: finally, Sibelius 7 has MusicXML export on board! A huge amount of users were asking us how they could convert their Sibelius files to MuseScore. (e.g. https://www.facebook.com/caleb.foreman/posts/10150374776437678 ) The Dolet plugin was obviously way overpriced to be a democratic solution. This is a huge relief now for e.g. educators, who have lots of material in Sibelius and wanted to convert it for their students who are using MuseScore.

Some of Sibelius 7′s features do have comparable features in MuseScore – and in some instances, MuseScore was first. Thomas observes:

MuseScore had a tabbed document interface (like a web browser) since the start of the project
MuseScore is of course native 64 bit (if compiled on a 64 bit machine)
PDF export has also been there from the beginning
Multi core playback is not available in MuseScore but the synthesizer runs in a second thread (so at least dual core)
MuseScore had import of SVG images since many years now
Upcoming MuseScore 2.0 has full screen support

Version 2.0 is likely to be the big release, in my mind; we’ll be watching. Thomas says they’re also working on improved branding and visual appearance in preparation for that release, and all of this is boosted, he says, by revenue from the iPad score reader. That makes an interesting new model for free and open source software.

A side note, as my biggest criticism of the free engraving tool Lilypond at the moment is its lack of two-way MusicXML file interchange. Thomas notes:

MuseScore has been able read and write MusicXML for several years now.

MuseScore exports Lilypond. It used to have Lilypond import as well, but that was dropped in 0.9.6 because it was better to spend out limited resources on improving MusicXML import. We expected to see MusicXML export in Lilypond anyway, but apparently that’s far from trivial since it still didn’t happen.

And what about compatibility for ABCjs, a JavaScript-powered, text-based notation format so simple it’s been implemented on mobile phones and Web browsers?

Yes there is. And the way this works is a very nice example of how hackable MuseScore is. It’s written out nicely in this post here but basically what happens is: a plugin in MuseScore let’s you browse for the ABC file, it then sends the ABC file to a web service at http://abc2xml.appspot.com which is made by one of the MuseScore developers, and finally that web service sends MusicXML back. Et voilà. (Note: as stated on the announcement: The webservice uses ABC4J. ABC4J supports ABC 1.6 only)

And for more comparison:

We made a comparison table between Sibelius and MuseScore:
Google Spreadsheets Comparison

This may help you to get an idea where MuseScore is and where version 2.0 is heading.

One note: MusicXML export is not available in Sibelius Student or First. Only in Sibelius 7. Bummer.

I think it should be plainly obvious: there’s room for more than one notation tool. There’s room for more than two notation tools. Competition between tools can drive capabilities forward, and better motivate tools to match what users need. Free and proprietary tools can both learn from one another, and even exchange files – there isn’t a gulf between free and open source and proprietary as some may have found in the past. The availability of better tools means the expanded ability of musicians to express themselves.

And MuseScore is becoming a viable option for notation. That can only be a good thing. If you use it in your work – or you have anything you’d like to share about how you create digital … scores – we’d love to hear from you.

http://musescore.org/

Avid released Sibelius 7 yesterday. Highlights in the new version:

A new UI. The most apparent change is a new user interface with dockable, tabbed panels. The design borrows heavily from Microsoft’s Office Ribbon, though a more subdued appearance makes it look just as comfortable on the Mac. My guess is that power users may just hide the whole thing and stick to keyboard shortcuts, but it should do wonders for discoverability for new users or more casual users not comfortable with that.

There’s also a nice new inspector, which looks a lot more usable and less-clumsy than the previous version.

The best UI feature: real full-screen mode, including on the Mac. The mixer has also been redesigned.

Better sharing for text, graphics, and more: Direct PDF and EPS export is now built in, with new “publisher-quality typography and graphics import/export.” It’s the feature least likely to be immediately noticed, but it could well be the best reason to upgrade. There’s also the ability to “sync or import” notation with Pro Tools, and of course you can publish to the iPad notation tool we’ve covered previously. (Links below.)

MusicXML interchange. Speaking of sharing, full, built-in MusicXML interchange support makes it possible to share notation with other tools, including Finale. (Side note: I hope this puts some pressure on the free tool Lilypond to support MusicXML export; it’s really frustrating that that’s missing. The proprietary tools are now more compatible than the free tool.)

64-bit support. Sibelius is indeed the first major native 64-bit notation software (at least, other than open source options which can be compiled for 64-bit). I’m not sure what the real-world implications of performance would be in notation itself – Sibelius was always plenty fast – but I’ll try to find out. It’s still a no-brainer. As for anyone using samples, this should provide 64-bit sample hosting, which is a very important feature for larger sample libraries / memory usage.

More sounds. Sibelius has long included licensed samples, but now following the Avid acquisition, the Avid virtual instruments folks have added their own symphony, rock, pop, organ, and (via Sample Logic) even band and drum and bugle sounds. We’ll have to hear how they sound and how well-integrated they are with the notation tools.

What about notation? The one thing I sense may be missing from this version is improvements to notation capabilities themselves. Because of the breadth of scoring possibilities, there’s almost always room for enhancement, and this update, while it appears a worthy investment for many users, seems from the information I have now not to address the core scoring functionality. That said, hidden in the feature set is better support for fonts which could have the greatest impact on how your scores actually appear: improved OpenType support adds compatibility with “the latest OpenType fonts, including advanced features like ligatures, and employ them in text frames with full DTP-level capabilities.” The ability to do that is very important to engraving and layout.

I hope to learn more about what the implications are for Sibelius scoring in Pro Tools, and how this version has changed.

By the way, Sibelius has also improved their academic pricing. US$295 is the student/teacher price, but what’s best about this is that they’re including four years of free upgrades for students. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen that (usually precisely the opposite, excluding academic customers from upgrades), and it’s a nice touch.

Previously, our coverage of Avid’s notation tool for iPad:
Not Quite Sibelius for iPad, but Avid Scorch Could Become an iTunes of Notation

Tablet Scores: Avid Answers Our Scorch Questions; Bluetooth Page Turners for iPad, Android

Load up an Ableton set or mix samples, and you’re already in the domain of interactive music. With joysticks and arcade buttons and other controls, the blending of game and musical interface into generative compositional fusion is even clearer. It’s little wonder many electronic musicians take an interest in the nexus of gaming and music.

Any discussion of interactive music scores for games would be incomplete without Jonathan Mak. His self-produced title Everyday Shooter used classic top-down space combat as a musical experience: not only do sound effects in the game act as musical elements, but even the flow of the game itself fits into a generated song structure. Mak even imagined the title as an album. Playing through it, once you get into the groove of the action, the roles of gamer and listener merge into a single flow. (See video, at end.) Another nice feature – breaking from cliche, it’s a music game that employs guitar lacks in place of, say, a pounding trance soundtrack.

Now, Mak turns his attentions from space shooter to platformer, with SoundShapes, on the console Sony announced this week, the PlayStation Vita. It’s best to watch the video to see what’s going on. It’s just a taste; we’ll have to see the final title.

There’s more good news, too: on of our favorite artists, the inventive i am robot and proud, is the musical collaborator. And you can now look to Toronto as a hotbed of indie game action – take that, Montreal and New York – with i am robot and proud and the team behind iPad album-as-game-as-album Swords & Sworcery.

The effects of making ever game event musical can be cartoonish at times – though, perhaps in a game, that’s part of the pleasure and aesthetic. But in Mak’s best moments, it was as though he was composing with gameplay – canonical gameplay forms as a modern, digital parallel to musical forms like a sonata.

We’ll be watching. Thanks to Metehan Korkmazel for the tip!

Via GameSetWatch, who have some nice analysis. (One point of disagreement – they speculate this will be onstage “in the hands of at least one chiptunes performer.” I think that’s actually relatively unlikely; chip music artists continue to prefer dedicated music tools, not games. Laptop artists would occasionally feature an ElectroPlankton cameo. But I’ve been fiddling with some Processing sketches that try to make game interfaces for music. It’s fun, if really hard; I’ll keep trying. Seems a good airport layover project.)

Previously on CDM:
Portal 2′s Musical World, Available Free, in Non-Adaptive Form “For Testing” [ Also makes use of interactive musical accompaniment ]

Game Meets Album: Behind the Music and Design of the iPad Indie Blockbuster Swords & Sworcery

Classically trained as a pianist, musician and producer Jon Hopkins has one of the richest resumes in electronic music. He’s a frequent collaborator with Brian Eno, wand has worked with artists like Coldplay (who featured his music on their last album), Tunng, David Holmes, and Imogen Heap. He worked with director Peter Jackson, and has a sci-fi score on the way. He also has a rich set of solo releases. And we’ve seen him here recently with remix swaps with Four Tet and contributions to Eno’s upcoming Warp record.

Coming to the Electric Zoo Festival, the blowout Randall’s Island Labor Day weekend electronic party here in New York, he’s set to perform a straight-up, genuinely live set, complete with a small squadron of KAOSS Pads. You can catch him Sunday at 1pm if you’re at the event.

I got a chance to speak to Mr. Hopkins by phone from the UK, before he departed for New York and Electric Zoo. He shares here how he works live onstage and in the studio, talks about how Brian Eno got him hooked on the Kaoss Pad, and reveals his addiction to the tools he first used as a keyboard and resistance to software and hardware upgrades. I’m especially able to resonate with what he has to say about working with sound, and transitioning from a piano background to working as a producer – and I’m listening to his work from a fresh perspective after the combination.

(Don’t miss the spectacularly lo-fi film of “Insides” from Live at the ICA, London, below.)

CDM: Not having seen your live show, knowing only your studio work, I’m looking forward to seeing you at Electric Zoo. Can you tell us a little bit about what you do for live sets?

Hopkins: It’s an Ableton [Live] system at the core of it. I ran off all the separate sounds from my own studio, and kind of loaded everything up into Ableton, so I’ve got total flexibility over all the songs. Then I have separate outputs through the interface, so I can have four or five [Korg] Kaoss Pads running in sync with Ableton, where I can do sampling and looping and all kinds of crazy sounds. And then I go into a mixing desk, and I’ve got a lot of control over what’s going on. I’ve got a little MIDI keyboard up there to play stuff on and to keep things triggering. That’s kind of it, really. It’s not enormously complex, because I have to be able to travel around with it on my own.

How do you use the multiple Kaoss effects in tandem?

The card I use has 16 outputs, so I can separate sounds into different ones and have different effects running on each pad. And sometimes I put one at the end to control the master. It depends. It’s a very flexible setup that way.

In order to assemble your clips, are you simply loading stems from the tracks into Live?

Loops, stem loops, and a little bit of everything. One-shot things, longer things. It’s kind of really just about having a variety, so you can take it any way you feel. I found out recently I’m playing for an hour and half rather than an hour [at Electric Zoo], and I normally do an hour, so there may be some slightly longer pieces. I’ve got some time to prepare, so I’ll go and revisit some other songs and try to bring some new things over, as well. So it should be interesting.

Otherwise, it sounds like the live set is mostly dry; you’re doing most of the processing on the KAOSS Pads.

Yeah. Those things – the Kaoss Pad [KP3], specifically — I was working with Brian Eno over the years and he showed me the original one when it first came out, and I’ve kind of followed them as they go. And seeing from him, some of the crazy things he can do with them — I’ve just gotten really addicted to them. You can kind of make them do things they’re not supposed to do. If you record things into the delay settings, particularly the loop settings, and then speed up the tempo, the craziest effects come out. If you got that going into another one, you end up with a sound onstage that you’d never get out of a computer. It’s cool.

Let’s talk about the new single, and the work with Kieran [Hebden / Four Tet]. How did that come about?

Well, we met about three years ago, I think. We had quite a lot of mutual friends. I had been a bit of remixing for an artist on Domino called James Yorkston, who he’d worked with, as well. A year or two later, I signed to Domino.

We did a show together at the Natural History Museum in New York, and it was our first show together – a year and a half ago or something. And the mix of styles went quite well, I think. And we did a few more, and we did a remix swap recently. I did one for his last single, “Angel Echoes,” with the Caribou remix on the other side. And he did one for my new single, which is “Vessel.” And now we have this tour together in October, which I look forward to very much.

Angel Echoes (Jon Hopkins remix) by Four Tet

How do you approach working with his sound, or approach the remix as opposed to your solo work?

It was great, actually, because I love the original. I loved his last album [There Is Love in You] — it was fantastic. The first time I heard it, a guy from Domino played me some of the tracks in the car, way before it was out. And I heard that song, and I just had this idea for it, which was to take that vocal out of the chords he had it in, and write a completely new chord sequence on the piano — have a very natural piano sound, and then have those vocals and those beats flow back in on top of that, and really just try to rewrite the whole chord structure. And he had a live drum loop in there, and I found that if I really squashed it with a limiter … you heard every tiny detail of it. I added an extra few snares here and there, and turned it into a real 3/4 kind of thing, a dance track. And then the main sound — the track was called “Angel Echoes.” I’ve got an old Eventide DSP 4000, which has got a setting called Angel Echoes — which is a complete coincidence; he had never heard of it. I tried putting all the vocals through this Angel Echoes patch and then sent the pitches up an octave and down an octave, as you can with the Eventide in a quite interesting way. There’s this sort of enormous, floating delay. And I had that filtering up in the background while the dry vocals play over top. So you can hear a lot of that effect in the song, particularly in the end. So that was that track.

It seems like the combination really works naturally, that there’s some common aesthetic between the two of you.

There’s some common ground in there, yes. Also… my early albums are completely different than his. I think we’ve grown closer over the years. I think it’s a nice combination, because we have some areas in which we’re similar, and some in which we’re completely different.

What’s your studio setup look like, aside from obviously the aforementioned Eventide?

I’ve got quite a strange combination of things. The core of it is now a Logic system. But I’ve only had it for about a couple of months. Everything I’ve actually released so far was done on Cubase VST from about — I don’t know, 2001 edition; I can’t remember what number it was. And all the sounds I’ve made over the years have been on SoundForge, which is a program I’ve just always loved. I’ve been using it since I was 19; I just got so used to it. I guess it’s whatever program you know best is the best one there is, really. I don’t think there’s huge amounts of difference between one sound editor and another. I’m sure they all can do similar things. But I’ve loved the way SoundForge just has the one massive waveform on the screen, and you can just have infinite levels of undo on every spearate sound. And I have that going into Cubase, so you can have these sounds kind of open live, and be changing them all the way through the process of the song. Just recently, I worked on a film soundtrack, and I found that system finally couldn’t quite handle having any video, so it started crashing a lot. So I’ve got this new Logic system, but I just can’t make any of the more complex sounds on that, because it takes so long. So what I’ve done is hook them up together with an Ethernet cable so now I can drop certain sounds in a folder and have them open in SoundForge and then drop them back in Logic. So I’m using them both, really.

And that’s great. I didn’t want to just completely lose all that, because I think that is what has defined the sounds I’ve been making over the years. I don’t want to change everything in one go. It just seemed like a step backwards in some way.

There’s something psychological about it too, right, when you’ve done a lot of work to have it look familiar? It seems you feel differently about that tool.

You do, I think so, yeah. And particularly when I started on Logic and hooked the two up, I just felt quite bewildered as to how I would ever reach the complexity of editing levels that I was used to. I just operate directly on the waveform. And I love that what you see there on the screen is what you’re hearing, rather than it going through a bunch of live plug-ins. It’s just what I’m used to, really.

So, what don’t you do on the level of the waveform? At what point do you decide, okay, I’m done with that level of granularity with the waveforms and now I’m ready to work with effects and mixing?

I think initially, you go by instinct. In SoundForge, I’d have three or four variations of a loop, and then they would be open in Cubase, or now Logic. And you’d be able to operate on little micro-edits. And then at some point, you feel the drum track is ready, and it doesn’t need any more tweaks — it would be overworked. And I don’t like over-programmed electronic music; I think it had its time, really. Now I really think a solid groove is the way.

And it’s great, at that point you can stick it in Logic. I invested in some crazy plugins, so I’ve got quite a lot of fun things going on in there. Hopefully it will evolve to be the best of both worlds.

And you work a lot with the keyboard, coming at this as a pianist, as well?

Yeah. I didn’t mention that the only keyboard I’ve ever used is a Korg Trinity. I’m sure there aren’t many around these days, but again, like with SoundForge I don’t think it’s about what you use, it’s about how well you know it and how long you’ve been using it. And I know that machine ridiculously well. I’ve had it again since my first setup, when I was 18. And I’ve got a few hundred sounds that I’ve made over the years. Every synth sound on all three of my albums comes from that, with the exception of a couple of bass sounds from a Nord Lead that I’ve got as well.

But it just gets enormously processed. I don’t use them as they are; I stick them into SoundForge and just mess them up, and go through a lot of processes.On the new album, a lot more of the sounds that sound like synths are actually real instruments that have been mangled. A lot of the things that sound like synth pads are actually where I was playing piano through a series of pitch things into quite a deep reverb, and I was using that with a kind of gate to make a lot of the pads and the rhythmic sounds.

You do have a piano in your studio, as well, I would imagine.

It’s, like, behind me when I’m sitting at the computer, so I can swivel around on the chair I can play it. It’s hooked up to a couple of mics, [which] goes into a nice old TL Audio valve pre-amp thing, which then goes into either SoundForge or into Logic, depending on what I’m working on.

It’s the same piano I’ve had since I was a kid, so it’s nice for me, it’s in good condition.

Do you find that piano practice or piano technique are still sort of part of your musical life?

No, unfortunately not; it’s gone. (laughs) I can only play what I need for myself. I used to be a clasically-trained pianist when I was a teenager. I guess it stopped when I was 17; I realize I wasn’t interested in pursuing that, because as a career, I wanted to make my own things.

I used to play a lot of technical stuff which is unfortunately gone. But I couldn’t really justify sitting there and practicing for two hours a day, which is what I used to do. Once you work on musica all the time, music in your spare time isn’t really something you want to do.

Having faced this very issue myself, it doesn’t sound like you feel in any way limited by that. From what I hear in your music, you have far more than enough facility to allow the keyboard to be part of what you do, even if it isn’t central. (And I enjoy that playing.)

Oh yeah. It’s very much limited to the exact thing that I need, but I can still do exactly what I want to hear on what I’m recording. The thing that hasn’t gone is the dynamic range, so I can still play very quietly if I need to, or generally stay in time. It’s just anything fast — but I would never have anything like that anyway, because it’s not really what I’m into playing-wise or writing-wise.

Do you find you draw on the Classical background that you have?

Yes it is, although in a very subliminal way. I haven’t played a Classical piece on the piano since 1998, so whatever’s left — I think I’m more influenced by film scores and what appeals in them, which in turn I guess are influenced classically. But there’s certainly no conscious reference between what I used to listen to and what I used to perform and what I write now.

So what are you listening to these days?

(pauses) My mind always goes blank when that question comes up.

Me, too — or I could say, in the last 72 hours?

(laughs) Actually I think I’ve got my iPod right here. I’ve been listening to a friend of mine, Nathan Fake of Border Communities, who did the other remix of my single. Been listening to his stuff, his album Hard Islands. I do tend to listen to stuff that people I work with or who are friends of mine. I listen to a lot of Brian Eno, very specifically the ambient series. I love all of that stuff. You kind of never get bored of that, really.

But I’m also into a lot of songs and more traditional singer stuff like Arthur Russell or Jim Martin, people like that. Proper lyrics I love, as well, almost listen to more of that than electronic stuff.

Take a listen to Nathan Fake’s remix yourself…

jon hopkins – wire (nathan fake remix) by nathan fake •official•

And then you had the experience of Monsters, the sci-fi film.

That was an amazing experience. I don’t know when it comes out in the US, but it comes out in the UK 12th of November. It was the first film I’ve worked on just on my own. Ed.: Hopkins is no stranger to film scoring by way of collaboration, having scored Peter Jackson’s The Lovely Bones with Brian Eno. And we’re in luck here in the US – the movie arrives October 29, on demand even sooner on September 24.

And there should be a soundtrack album that comes with that. It’s very much more cinematic style, no beats, much more pure melody and atmosphere and tension. So it doesn’t sound like any of my albums, really. It’s interesting to be pushed in different directions by whatever you’re working on.

Had you had the experience of thinking about visual ideas when you worked on music before? I know it’s very different when you have someone else’s image there in front of you.

No, that was a whole new thing, because I actually don’t tend to think particularly visually. I always wanted videos to get made – but you don’t really get those kind of budgets any more. So I don’t tend to think of anything in particular when I’m writing. I just follow the instinct of the melody and where it goes. So it’s almost like having a film in there takes an enormous part of the pressure and responsibility off, because you’re not the main focus.

How slavish were you in terms of how you lined things up?

Pretty specific. I mean, it was my first time on my own, as I said, doing it. So I pretty much was feeling my way; even simple things like how to arrange the sessions on the computer for each queue — it would have been useful to know that you should have a different session for every queue, because I was trying to do it in one and thinking, wow… (laughs) Just simple organization was quite difficult.

I guess the learning curve is administrative as well as creative!

And it went really well in the end. I was working very strange working hours of 2pm to 4am every single day, and sleeping very strange hours, and not doing anything else. It was the middle of winter, and I barely saw daylight. Life is very simple when that’s all you’re doing. You just feel like for that period of time, you’re not thinking of anything else. I manage to take care of everything else that comes up and come in every day and fight through to the end, really. It was an amazing experience.

It’s starting to pick up some great momentum, so we’re really excited about it coming out.

More Information

http://www.madeevent.com/ElectricZoo/

Official site: Jon Hopkins

Monsters Film

And one more Jon Hopkins remix…

Wild Beasts – Two Dancers (Jon Hopkins Remix) by Jon Hopkins

Sure, it’s a Spaghetti-Western-inspired soundtrack to the hit Rockstar game called jokingly by fans Grand Theft Horse. But to me, a richly-composed musical score for a blockbuster video game sums up a lot of where music production is at these days. Composed by Bill Elm and Woody Jackson, Red Dead Redemption gets a score that blends Western authenticity with more experimental ambiances. We get a first glimpse of that process with a behind-the-scenes video released by Rockstar (and reproduced on CDM with permission) this week.

Watch past the boilerplate voiceover as they get into the production, and you’ll see some glimpses of real gems. Aside from harmonica legend Tommy Morgan, they’ve got themselves one seriously wonderful collection of odd instruments. (There’s some of the organic, decayed instrumental sense of Diego Stocco here, who with Hans Zimmer made the rusty clang and bang of Sherlock Holmes last winter.)

What’s this got to do with digital music? In the post-sampling age, even the oldest, most broken-down sound can become digital. And old, entirely acoustic sonic tricks are being rediscovered by today’s generation. Sometimes it takes years behind sound-alike convolution reverbs to convince you that what you should really do is just play into a kettle drum.

There’s also a new approach to composition necessitated by games, which ironically brings game scoring – itself inspired mainly by film composition – in line with techniques associated with electronic music and DJing (stems, loops, and the like). I don’t think any game has yet mastered the challenge; game industry workflows, technical limitations, deadlines, and the sheer enormity of having to re-learn compositional narrative in interactive contexts all conspire against that. But an open-ended Old West playground seems a good place to begin.

The basic techniques here are nothing new in gaming; what’s nice is that the game’s setting opens up something other than the parade of licensed radio (Grand Theft Auto) or conventional orchestral soundtrack. In order to keep things digestible, I’m fairly certain you’re not getting a full taste of everything the musical coordinators did, so I will try to talk to them more. The big limitation of game soundtracks in the next-generation console era has been that the relative flexibility of MIDI-driven soundtracks has been replaced with better-sounding, but more inflexible recorded audio. Then again, the challenge of how to make audio more dynamic is one that live laptop musicians face as do game designers.

I hope to have more with the makers of this score soon, so if you have questions or ideas, let us know.

The history of music and the history of music notation are closely intertwined. Now, digital languages for communicating musical ideas between devices, users, and software, and storing and reproducing those ideas, take on the role notation alone once did. Notation has always been more than just a way of telling musicians what to do. (Any composer will quickly tell you as much.) Notation is a model by which we think about music, one so ingrained that even people who can’t read music are impacted by the way scores shape musical practice.

All of this creates a special challenge. Musical notational systems had traditionally evolved over centuries. Now, we face the daunting question of how to build that language overnight.

This question has been a topic I’ve visited in a couple of talks, first here in New York at in/out fest last December, then most recently for a more general audience at RSVP, a new conversation series in Hamburg, Germany hosted by the multi-disciplinary design studio Precious Forever. (See photo at top, by which we can prove that the event happened. Check out more on the event and how the Precious gang hope this will inspire new interchange of ideas in Hamburg – something perhaps to bring to your town.)

What I’ve learned in talking to people at those events is, music notation matters. It’s more relevant to broad audiences than even those audiences might instinctively think. The most common lingua franca we have for digital music storage, MIDI, is woefully inadequate.

But perhaps most importantly: replacing MIDI’s primitive note message is far from easy. The more you try to “fix” MIDI, the more you appreciate its relative simplicity. And engineering new solutions could take re-examining assumptions Western music notation has made for centuries.

Musical notation and culture

Explaining the importance of notation to expert musicians is easy. But to convey its importance to lay people, you need look no further than the game interface developed by Harmonix for the hit titles Guitar Hero and Rock Band (and in turn descended from a similar interface paradigm used in the Japan-only Konami GuitarFreaks). These games demonstrate that, even among non-musician gamers, certain received wisdoms from Western notation endure. (In fairness, many of the designers of music games have a fair bit of musical experience, but the fact that their work is received by audiences in the way it is nonetheless speaks volumes.)

The Guitar Hero interface actually is a Western musical score, rotated 90 degrees to make it easier to see how the events on-screen are matched to game play input. (For visual effect, the “track” is also rotated away from the screen, so that events further in the future recede into the background – a bit of visual flair that helped differentiate Harmonix from flatter-looking Japanese games.)

Whatever the rotation, the assumptions of the game screen itself are rooted in notation. Pitch is displayed along lines and spaces, just as on a score. Rhythm is displayed along a metrical grid, which reads as a linear track. Not coincidentally, I believe, when Harmonix has deviated from this formula, their titles have tended to be less successful. More sophisticated interactions in titles like Amplitude and Frequency (and the iPod game Phase) were big hits among gamers, but less so among the general public, perhaps in part because they require a more abstract relationship to the music.

Games are just one example, of course. Musical scores reflect basic cultural expectations, and in turn shape the music that people in that culture produce. As with most Western languages, text flows from left to right and top to bottom. Ask people to describe pitch in any culture that uses this notational system, and they’ll use the notions of “up” and “down,” “higher” and “lower” – even though these metaphors are meaningless in terms of sound. (Indonesian culture, for instance, gets it more physically correct, by describing what we call higher pitches as “smaller” and deeper pitches as “larger,” as they are in gongs.) And music in Western cultures are also deeply rooted on a grid, on 4/4 time and equal subdivisions. It wasn’t always so: even in the West, prior to the advent of notation of these meters, metrical structures flowed more freely.

It’s little surprise, then, that some of the biggest successes in electronic musical instruments have adopted the same conventions. From the Moog sequencer to the Page R editor on the Fairlight CMI sampler to the array of buttons on Roland’s grooveboxes, rhythmic sequencers that follow the grids devised in Western music notation are often the most popular. Even if the paradigm of the interface is one degree removed from the notation, the assumptions of how rhythms are divided – and thus the kinds of patterns you produce – remain.

Nowhere is this more true than in MIDI. MIDI is itself a kind of notational system, around which nearly all interfaces in software and hardware have been based over the past two and a half decades since its introduction.

MIDI, keyboards, and piano rolls: An incomplete “standard”

The first thing to understand about MIDI is that it began life as a keyboard technology. A complete history of MIDI should wait for another day, but even as its early history is told by the MIDI Manufacturing Association, it’s a technology for connecting keyboard-based synthesizers, not a solution to the broader question of how to represent music in general.

Many of the tradeoffs in MIDI, though, were made long before the 1980s or the invention of digital technology. When the 19th Century creators of the player piano needed not only standardization but reproduce-ability – before the advent of recording, the power to recreate entire musical performances – they turned to the piano as a way of modeling musical events. Indeed, the first player pianos quite literally reproduced the process of playing a piano, using wooden, mechanical fingers to strike notes on the keys just as a human would, before that mechanism was replaced with the internal players familiar to us today. What these inventors found in the piano was an instrument that, in the name of accessibility, aligned pitch to a simple grid.

The piano is a beautiful instrument, but its great innovation – the grid of its black and white keys – is also its greatest shortcoming. That grid is an imperfect model even of Western musical pitches, let alone other cultural systems. The 12-tone equal-tempered tuning used on modern pianos makes tuning multiple keys easier, but only by way of compromises. Even a modern violinist or singer may differentiate between the inflection of a G flat and an F sharp, based on context, but to the piano, these pitches are the same. And tuning is only the beginning. Piano notes begin with a note being “switched” on and end with it being “switched” off – no bending or other events within that pitch as on most other instruments.

It’s little wonder, given MIDI’s origins as a protocol for communicating amongst keyboards, that the editing view most common in music software is the piano roll, labeled as such. The piano roll is the perfect paradigm for sequencing events played on a keyboard, but that doesn’t mean it’s the best language for describing all music. And the obligation of a digital protocol is actually greater than that of musical notation, because there’s no human being at the other end to fill in missing expression and context.

Consider what’s missing in MIDI:

• Pitch reference: By convention, MIDI note 60 is C4. However, musical practice internationally lacks a consistent standard for what the tuning of C4 is, and any number of variables can interfere, from independent tuning tables to the use of the pitch bend to the activation of an octave transpose key.
• Pitch meaning: MIDI note values use an arbitrary pitch range from 0 to 127, a hypothetical 128-key piano, which itself makes no sense. 4? 8? 15? 16? 23? 42? The numbers themselves don’t mean anything.
• Pitch resolution: Because of the 0-127 resolution constraints, to get notes in between the pitches, you need a series of separate messages like pitch bend, giving you two values with only an incidental relationship to one another. Since pitch range is kept in yet another message, the results are confusing and un-musical, far more complex than they need to be. (Why wouldn’t 60.5 be a half-tone higher than 60?)
• Real expression: Events between note on and note off are represented independently as control change values. But that causes problems, because it means there’s no standard way to represent something as simple as a musical glissando. On a synth, making an expression (like twisting a knob or turning a wheel) separate from a note (pressing a key) makes sense. But that doesn’t make musical sense, and it doesn’t match most non-keyboard instruments. Only aftertouch is currently available, and that again assumes a keyboard and doesn’t expose pitch relationships created by adding the data.
• Musical representations of tuning and mode: The MIDI Tuning extensions require that you dump tuning information in fairly unstructured System Exclusive binary dumps. The standard itself is in some flux, and at best, its reliance on byte messages means that it’s not something a human being can read. And it still must be aligned with 128 otherwise arbitrary values. It’ll work, but it only makes sense on keyboards, and even then, it’s not terribly musical. Looking at number 42 in your sequencer, you’d have no idea of the tuning behind it, or the position in a mode – something any rational musical notational system would make clear.

Ironically, it was this very set of constraints that early innovators on the Buchla and Moog synthesizers hoped to escape. They were fully aware that the very genius of the keyboard was restricting musical invention. Analog control voltage, the basic means of interconnecting equipment prior to digital tech, was more open ended than MIDI, which replaced it. But that’s not to say it was better. Standardization is an aid in communication, as is the ability to describe messages. The question is, how can you do both? How can you be open ended and descriptive at the same time?

How do you build a new system?

Deconstructing is easy; constructing is hard. We certainly have the ability to send more open-ended messages and higher-resolution data; that’s not a problem. (Even by the early 80s when MIDI was introduced, its tiny messages and slow transmission speeds were conservative.) We also have OpenSoundControl (OSC), which has some traction and popularity, including near-viral use on mobile devices and universal support in live visual applications. It’s telling that that protocol is itself not really an independent protocol in the sense that MIDI is, but built on existing standards like TCP/IP and UDP. 2010 is, after all, not 1984.

The hold-up, I think, is simply the lack of a solid proposal for how to handle musical notes. And there are plenty of distractions. It’s tempting to throw out the simplicity of MIDI’s note on and note off schema, but it’s partly necessary: with a live input, you won’t know the duration of a pressed key until that key is released. It’s equally tempting to cling to Western musical pitches, even though those pitches themselves lack solid standardization and don’t encompass musical practices in the rest of the world. (12-tone equal temperament is a recent invention even in the Western world, and one that doesn’t encompass all of our musical practice. World tunings should best be described not by majority, but plurality, anyway – have a look at the current demographics of Planet Earth.)

One solution is simply to express musical events by frequency. That’s not a bad lowest common denominator, or a way to set the frequency of an oscillator. As a musical representation, though, it’s inadequate. It’s simply not how we think musically. The numbers are also unpleasant, because we perceive pitch roughly logarithmically. Pop quiz:

Can you do logarithms in your head? Yes or no?

Can you count?

MIDI gets it half right by using numbers, but then it’s hard to see octave equivalence, another essential concept for perceiving pitch. MIDI note 72 is probably equivalent to MIDI note 60… assuming 12 steps per octave. Or it might not be.

If you need a common denominator that covers a variety of musical traditions, mode (or more loosely, pitch collection) and register aren’t a bad place to start. I don’t think a system needs to be terribly complex. It could simply be more descriptive than MIDI is – while learning from the things MIDI does effectively.

Consider a new kind of musical object, described over any protocol you choose. It would ideally contain:

• Mode/pitch collection: As with MIDI and the MIDI tuning tables, tuning would need to be defined independently, but it can be done in a musical, human-readable way. It then becomes possible even to define modes that have different inflections based on context, as with pitches that are slightly different in ascending and descending gestures (common in many musical systems).
• Relative degree: a notation like “1 1 2 3 5 6″ can work in any musical language. You simply need to know the active mode or pitch collection.
• Register: Instead of conflating register and scale degree, you could simply define an octave register and starting frequency. This retains modal identities and octave equivalence, and makes relative transposition easy to understand. (A “transposition” message could be defined as an actual message, which is more musically meaningful.)
• Standardized inflections, connected to pitch: Pitch bends and glissandi should be relative to a specific note, because notes can have pitches that bend around their relative scale degree. (Think of a singer bending just below a note and into the actual pitch. These aren’t independent events.) A trombonist would never have invented MIDI notes. They would likely have immediately turned to the question of how to universally describe bending between notes.
• Yes, frequency: There will be times when directly referring to frequency makes sense, and that should be possible, as well.
• Relative duration: Musical notation, regardless of musical culture, uses some kind of relative indication of duration. Only machines use raw clock values. The result is that it’s possible to make musically meaningful changes in tempo and have durations respond accordingly. And whereas note on and note on events make sense on input, a musical event would not logically separate these events; there’s some notion of an event with a beginning, middle, and end. If you sing an ‘A,’ that’s one event, with a duration, not an independent beginning of the note and end of the note.

Far from replacing existing standards for music notation, this kind of standard could interchange more gracefully with printed notation. If you import a standard MIDI file into notation software, you get results that are typically full of errors, because the SMF lacks musical information about the events it contains. With more of that information stored, and stored in standard ways, translating to paper would become vastly more effective.

I’m sure attempts to model this in OSC have been attempted before, but it’s worth compiling those ideas and resurrecting the discussion.

What about input?

Ah, you say, but then, let’s go back to the keyboard. None of these events makes sense on a keyboard. You don’t know when a note is pressed how long it’ll last. You don’t know the modal degree of a particular, arbitrarily-played note.

I was stuck on the same problem, until I realized what I had been taking for granted: MIDI conflates two very separate processes. It makes input and output the same. Musical notational systems have never done that. When you look at a score, it’s a set of musical ideas, given meaning and context. If you record a series of events from an input, those events don’t immediately have meaning or context. It’s confusing the mechanical with the musical. It’s the reason MIDI is not just like a player piano – it is a digital player piano.

Separate out the issue of recording mechanical input events, and you can have a system that’s more flexible. That system should fit whatever the input is. An organ, a shakuhachi, a didgeridoo, and an electric guitar aren’t the same thing. Why would they be represented with the same set of input events? That’s pretty daft.

Look at it this way: imagine if instead of being invented by synthesizer people, Aeolian Harp players had invented MIDI. (It’s not so far-fetched: the Aeolian Harp has a millenia-long history and was once quite popular.) An Aeolian Harp sequencer would feature elaborate, high-resolution data recording for wind pressure relative to different strings. It might measure, even, wind direction. In fact, it’d look a lot more like meteorological data than musical data per se. It certainly wouldn’t involve integers from 0 to 127.

This should lead to a simple conclusion with profound consequences:

Physical input and musical output should not be the same thing.

One of the advantages of a protocol like OSC (or any open, networked, self-described protocol) is that it can be open-ended and descriptive, meeting our earlier challenge. For instance, using a hierarchy of meta-data attached to the message, you could describe a set of variables relevant to wind input. If you wanted to transcribe the results in musical terms, you could then use a musical notation, as above – one that used musical identity attached to the resulting frequencies, as in relative modal pitch and rhythmic duration. But the input would be a separate problem. That’s a far piece from MIDI, which is adequate neither as a complete description of the input device, nor of any kind of resulting musical system.

But wait a minute – how is there a standard? How do you standardize something that could include an Aeolian Harp, a vuvuzela, and a bagpipe? Welcome to the problem of music. Music is by its very nature resistant to standardization, because the possibilities of the physical world are so broad. This also suggests how input protocols (and output protocols) can go beyond musically-exclusive data. Again, we can turn back to MIDI as a model. MIDI was intended with specific applications in mind, with messages that referred to MIDI notes and filter cutoff. But that didn’t stop it from being warped to accommodate tasks well outside the standard, ranging from triggering videos to controlling amusement park robotic characters (literally). This suggests to me that what defines a standard protocol of this kind is not what is most strictly standardized, but what is most flexible.

The real challenge with something like OSC, then, is to come up with standardized ways of defining non-standardized events, and using some kind of reflection or remote invocation to allow devices or software that have never communicated before to handle unexpected messages intelligently. At the very least, they should give users clear, understandable options about the data they send and receive. This independent question has been one the OSC community has raised for some time. To me, all that remains is to make some compelling implementations and let the most effective solution evolve and win out. Recent reading on the topic (though this absolutely deserves a separate post, which I’ll get to soon):
Best Practices for Open Sound Control
Minuit : Propositions for a query system over OSC

That’s a separate problem from how to make events musically meaningful. But that to me is the central revelation, and something MIDI completely misses: these are two separate problems, not one problem. Handle input events as input. If it makes sense in a sequencer to record them as musical events (like scale degree pitches), do that. If it makes sense to record them as a series of time-stamped, physical events, do that – but with actual information relative to what was recorded, so that the wind across an Aeolian Harp is recorded in a way that makes sense for that input. And when describing musical events, describe them in musical ways.

This isn’t relevant only to music communities, either: it’s relevant to anyone recording events in time. It’s part of the reason the “sound” needs to be dropped from OSC. MIDI is as specific as it is partly because the specification has messages too small to contain information describing what the events mean. We now have standard network protocols that do that, so they can include information about other kinds of events. There’s no reason someone monitoring water levels in their herb garden and someone recording a sousaphone solo couldn’t use some of the same underlying protocols. There’s also every reason they’d record different kinds of data content.

Promising venues and a call to action

There’s really no need to try to “replace” or “fix” MIDI – if MIDI has endured for a specific application, maybe it actually is well-suited to that application. I think it’s time, instead, to think about how new systems can encompass more musical meaning from our own traditions and traditions around the world, and how we can standardize broad ranges of events instead of trying to fit everything into narrow, rigid boxes.

There is every reason to believe new things can happen now, too. Whereas hardware standardization once was a slow process, requiring the involvement of major manufacturers, we now carry around programmable computers inside our pockets as “phones” and learn to write embedded code in Freshman college classes using $30 Arduino boards. If you want new hardware standards, you can literally make them yourself. We have the ability to share musical notation directly in a Web browser using standard descriptions, as covered here recently. Because browsers in general are demanding newly distributed, networked applications, communicating in standard ways – as Web APIs do naturally – is becoming imperative.

But there’s one thing that makes me especially optimistic: you. Via the Web, we have instant access to your collective knowledge and experience. That means it’s a sure thing that all of us, collectively, knows more about previous research in this area, previous ideas, and what has and hasn’t worked. We also have the opportunity to communicate with each other, to make ideas evolve, at least experimentally. That doesn’t remove the need for eventual standardization, but good standards follow practice, not the other way around – something has to work in one place before it can be a shared standard. We also have mechanisms for self-standardization that didn’t exist before. Spoken languages evolve because people collectively work to share common means of communication. You might argue that this leads to a tower of Babel, but then, I’m writing this in English and you’re reading it in the same language and (hopefully) understanding. The same is true of Mandarin, Portuguese, German, Arabic, Hindi, and so on. It’s also true of volunteer adoption on the Internet of HTML, XML, JSON, and RSS.

Music is not the result of notation or standards. It’s the other way around. Musical practice long predated any attempt to write it down. And mathematics and written language each have abilities to describe music and many other media.

To me, two questions remain:
1. What would an implementation of structured messages for pitch and duration look like, perhaps implemented via OSC? What history has been there in this area, and what do you need?
2. How can smarter implementations of a protocol like OSC allow software and hardware to better handle unfamiliar input – as musicians, as they have done since the dawn of time, invent novel physical interfaces?

I look forward to kicking off this discussion and hearing what you think.

Quick: you need to produce a music score. It needs to look really great. The deadline is looming. You’ve lost your serial number for [insert program here]. What do you do? The answer might surprise you.

Lilypond is something of a cult secret in music notation circles. It’s free software for high-quality computer engraving, it runs on any platform (Mac, Windows, Linux), and it produces exceptionally good-looking output, often exceeding leading commercial programs in particularly tricky notational situations. But it could easily scare off beginners, because it isn’t necessarily graphical software. The tool generates its output from text files, a bit like the way in which a Web page is rendered from an HTML file.

What beginners don’t know is that text entry doesn’t have to be slower or more daunting – especially if you choose a tool that assists you in the entry process.

Lilypond’s language for basic music entry is actually reasonably simple. If you want a g flat, for instance, you just type “gf.” (Note: you will probably need to adjust Lilypond for your native language to get an abbreviation for “flat” that makes sense to you! Hint: “flat” is in English.) To change rhythmic durations, you use a number, so two eights followed by two quarter notes would look like “c8 d e4 f.” Because it’s text-based, you can be explicit about what you want, which avoids some of the pitfalls of graphical entry methods. If text is to be attached to a specific note, you specify which note in your text file. Most importantly, this means that entering and arranging notation doesn’t get any harder as the score becomes more involved. For complex measures with densely-packed material, or tricky notations from early music to modern composition, Lilypond continues to handle layout and rendering automatically, without intervention – just at the point many graphical programs will have you pulling out your hair.

Lilypond “Switch” How-to Crash Course

Entry itself can therefore move really fast, especially if you like to sketch out an idea on paper (or in a MIDI file) first. I recently completed my first score in Lilypond, and was surprised that – after the initial hour or two of entry – I started to really like it. Getting the first few bars in was a bit tricky as I got the hang of entry, but then, to my surprise, finishing the score went as fast or faster than it had in other programs.

Find the Right Tools

That isn’t to say you won’t want some help. Music notation is always involved, because of the sheer quantity of notational conventions used – even for fairly simple musical contexts. And while text entry makes copying fast, you’re likely to want some MIDI playback and entry assistance. In fact, I’d wager the quality of your experience with Lilypond will depend on choosing a front-end tool you like.

I experimented with various tools on my Ubuntu install, including some graphical programs that can read and write Lilypad files. If anyone is interested, there are a number of programs I can recommend you don’t use. In the end, I found that what I wanted was essentially a text editor – so I could take advantage of the speed of Lilypond’s text-based language – but with plenty of shortcuts so that I’d never get lost trying to look up how to input a symbol.

Frescobaldi was a real pleasure to use, if you have a Linux install. (That’s the case for now; efforts to port KDE and Python should mean Mac and Windows versions aren’t far off.) It’ll install a lot of dependencies on a stock Ubuntu install because it relies on KDE, but it’s a nice all-in-one tool. A PDF preview accompanies your text so you can see what you’re doing, and by clicking on a note, you jump to the correct place in the text. There’s instant access to online help and notational references. The nicest feature is perhaps the MIDI input using Rumor, which worked out of the box with an M-Audio USB MIDI keyboard I connected.

Frescobaldi

The other best-of-class tool I found is none other than omni-platform text editor jEdit, with the LilyPondTool add-on (Mac, Windows, Linux). (Thanks to a Twitter friend for the tip; thanks to Twitter’s terrible archiving, I’ve lost who you are, so say hi in comments?)

Grab jEdit, and perform two steps:

1. De-uglify jEdit. Yes, that default skin is hideous, and doesn’t look like any OS you’ve seen in the past ten years. Choose Utilities > Global Options > Appearance > Swing look & feel, and set it to something native for your OS. Reboot, and take a deep breath.

2. Install the plug-in. Incredibly, it’s a default option. Choose Plugins > Plugin Manager > Install > LilyPondTool.

jEdit’s LilyPondTool does a lot of what Frescobaldi does, with wizards for setting up scores and changing parameters and various clickable shortcuts. But it benefits from putting this functionality inside an extensible, standard text editor, which means you can do anything with LilyPondTool that you can with jEdit. And there are simply more options – there are more quick menu shortcuts for symbols, tweaks, and all the other little things you have to do in notation that you don’t realize you have to do until you get halfway through a score. That makes LilyPondTool a bit friendlier to beginners. It doesn’t have MIDI input as Frescobaldi does, but it does have MIDI playback. You even get nice tools for making templates and OpenOffice-based hyphenation of lyrics, plus a virtual on-screen keyboard to aid with entry.

http://www.jedit.org/
LilyPondTool

One part of the process I didn’t quite work out was the best MIDI import tool. There’s a simple Python script that ships with the Lilypond distribution, and it can be called from tools like jEdit+LilyPondTool. But converting MIDI to notation isn’t a simple task in any tool, so I’d have to research this further. Doing note entry in a proper MIDI sequencer, then adjusting the engraving in a Lilypond editor like jEdit or Frescobaldi seems a terrific workflow, though, if anyone has found a process that works for them.

What you might miss…

So, how does a free tool like Lilypond stack up against the newest version of, say, Sibelius?

Even if you’re a seasoned Sibelius user, I highly recommend doing at least one score in Lilypond, as it’ll give you a window into how Sibelius works, and the issues that arise in computer notation. I believe Lilypond may have even helped influence modern versions of Sibelius with its approach to engraving, though that’s only from memory – don’t quote me on that.

You will see some advantages of Sibelius. Sibelius’ graphical layout means there’s no separation between what you see and what you edit, and one big edge of the Sibelius engine from the beginning has been its ability to reflow even huge scores almost instantly. That visual process could become part of your compositional workflow, too, with on-screen clipboards for ideas and quick playback of ideas. Sibelius has also done a lot recently with DAW-style tools for MIDI, live tempo tapping, integration with ReWire, and so on. That makes Sibelius a powerful tool for creating high-quality playback right in the score.

Nice as Lilypond is, I certainly have an easier time imagining teaching students notation with Sibelius than with a text editor.

Advantages of the Lilypond approach

I commonly hear odd, defensive barbs about free software, especially in the music community. People will casually drop statements like, “but the open source community doesn’t innovate. They just rip off commercial software. And it’s just not as good.” As near as I can figure, this entire argument is often based on one or two bad experiences with OpenOffice a few years ago.

Now, some of this defensiveness comes from the fair perception that discussion of free software often centers more on philosophy than practicality. And there, I agree. Software is a tool. Philosophy matters, but you ought to be able to look at tools in more or less objective terms. You ought to be able to like using the tool.

Lilypond is a perfect counter-example. It is innovative software, period; now well over a decade old, it’s well-respected in the engraving community. I’ve been surprised to find out how many people use it, and they do so because it saves them time and headaches and they like the output.

It’s also just plain different from the commercial offerings. Its free nature means it can do things that commercial software doesn’t even try to do. (Can you imagine a major vendor unveiling a text-only notation app? Didn’t think so.)

As with any design, this means some trade-offs. They aren’t as simple as “Sibelius and Finale are for casual users; Lilypond is for hard-core geeks.” On the contrary, I found some real advantages.

Text input means backup, file exchange, and tracking revisions becomes a whole lot easier. Lilypond’s output is more like traditional engraved scores than anything I’ve seen from Sibelius or Finale, even when swapping fonts in those packages. Lilypond is uniquely equipped for doing early music notation; it makes a lot of alternative notations as easy as modern notation. Sure, that sounds like an “advanced” feature, but it’s an “entry level” feature if you happen to perform or research early music.

Also, despite improvements to things like Sibelius’ “magnetic layout” and other automated features, I find that even the newest versions of these apps still require a lot of tweaking after the fact. Lilypond still requires “subjective” tweaks – adding a page break where you want one, for instance – but I tried some tests with bars of music that broke my favorite commercial tools, and Lilypond was very hard to stump. There’s also the simple fact of the matter that with graphical tools, it’s easier to screw up the notation yourself, by attaching text to the wrong note or dragging something slightly out of place. Those changes are hidden in the graphical view, too, whereas they’re explicit in the textual score.

I don’t think one approach is necessarily better than the other. The point is, you need both. Something like Sibelius or Finale is just not going to evolve in free software. But something like Lilypond isn’t going to evolve in commercial software.

You also don’t have to choose one or the other. Thanks to MusicXML, an interchange format, you can exchange files between Sibelius or Finale and Lilypond easily. If you work a lot with scores, it’s worth a download – and the price is right.

And I don’t believe Lilypond is “for geeks only.” Give yourself a simple job, like a lead sheet, and pick a solid tool. Give it a real try, with a couple of evenings to get used to the language. I think whether you like the results will have more to do with personal preference. But I’m glad Lilypond exists, and I think you may find it’s something you want to add to your arsenal, even if that arsenal also includes one of these other tools.

For good measure, here’s a visualization of the open source contributions to the project.

code_swarm: LilyPond apr 23, 2010 v2 from Paco Vila on Vimeo.

Keep up with news from the project, and some good tips, at:
http://news.lilynet.net/

Share your experience

If you want to give this a try, I recommend both the jEdit and (for Linux) Frescobaldi routes. Each has links to Lilypond tutorials and documentation right in the program. I’ll try to work out a quick tutorial at some point, too; I’m planning a bigger set of scores and am going to give Lilypond the old college try.

Worked with Lilypond? Found a tutorial that helped you out? Got some tips? Trying it out and need help? Do share.

By the way, that score I worked on will be premiering as part of a party with operatic and musical theater types Monday in New York. Alongside digital music made by computers, it’s nice to get to work with humans, too, which is why I suspect notation will be with us for a long time to come.

New music party, NYC, Monday night 5/17