Showing posts with label Finale. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Finale. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Music Publishing Trends, Part One of a MegaSeries!

Hi all! Recently I wrote a blogpost here and shared it on the ACDA FaceBook page. It was read by a whole lot of folks. It was a blog reporting that Iowa ACDA has created a Repertoire and Standards chair to increase Iowa conductors awareness of self-publishing composers (and perhaps small publishers?) who deviate from the old publishing model. Appointed to this new position is Connor Koppin and I shared the introduction Connor wrote to Iowa ACDA members.

I have decided to feature, in the next week or two, various composers who have created their own co-ops, shall we say, as well as small choral music publishers who have broken, in some way, with the business model that the longer established publishers have been using. I will try to start summarizing what that old model is/was and, if you read Connor's words from the link, or mine here, you will get an idea of what is going on. For many of you this isn't news, but for many it is.

Part One: the old model of choral music publishing (we'll stick to choral for now, not that other music types are much different) has been around a long time. But many aspects have changed drastically, yet composer/publisher contracts and agreements have barely changed at all. I will first note the biggest change that has occurred since about 1990, the invention of music engraving software (Finale, Sibelius plus others) which is now the method of choice for about 99% of composers and publishers.

In the good old days composers just composed (and maybe conducted). They took pencil or pen to manuscript paper and had at it. After scribbling a double bar at the end of a new piece their work was now done (let's assume we are talking about someone who has a reputation as a professional composer, perhaps in the 19th or 20th century, and we'll also exclude 1960's through 1980's avant-guarde composers who made their own printable scores using the ozalid process). From here the publisher took over the laborious task of creating a highly professional-looking score which musicians could easily read. The publisher would have to proof the scribbles of the composer (and I mean scribbles!) and then set about creating a layout, with EVERY ELEMENT then punched into a zinc metal plate, BACKWARDS for every page! Ponder that for a moment. Whether a simple little Schumann song, or a Dvorak string quartet, or Stravinsky's Rite of Spring- everything was HAND PUNCHED by extremely diligent craftsmen onto metal plates, which then were sent to the printing presses. Think of the enormous variety of elements within a musical score- each note, beam, slur marking, each hairpin dynamic, each fermata, etched into a metal plate by hand! I think the younger you are, the more you may be unaware of how printing music used to be accomplished before computer engraving software such as Finale or Sibelius.  What we have with Finale now would seem like absolute wizardry to people from the past. Here are two absolutely fascinating videos by the publishing house of G. Henle in Germany where you can see the process in action. The videos mention the time needed to create one page of fairly straightforward music- one video states three hours, and I believe the hour says 6-8 hours. Can you imagine how long it would take to produce heavily orchestrated conductor's score pages for something like the previously mentioned Rite of Spring?








Sidenote: where did the word score come from in regard to music publication and printing? Answer: from the process of scoring the metal with a five-pronged tool to create staves.

Before this first blog in the series become too long,  I'm going to direct you to more videos. These next videos are more recent processes which involve ink and paper, and lithography.  And at my next posting I will pick up the thread as we examine publishing past and present, and the changed/changing workload relationship between composers and publishers.


Ha- check out the rub-on (press-type) letters and symbols!



Here is a process which begins by utilizing an oversize score for ease of detail work which is then reduced by the camera.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Social media videos might make you believe anything!

Ah yes, we used to ask people, especially children,  if they believed everything they read. Now, perhaps we should ask, do you believe everything you see on FaceBook and youtube?

For instance:



Recently some of my musician friends have been sharing the following video on social media
and getting a bit overexcited about it and hoping to see more.




Meanwhile my take as a composer who, unfortunately, spends far too much time engraving music with Finale, was this;

1) Is there anything more to this so-called "app" than just the little that they show in the video? In other words, is this app capable of doing high powered score layout, transposition, part generation, lyric underlays, score optimization, piano cross-staff notations,  cut-away scores, and a gazillion other complicated things that Finale and Sibelius (I'm not a Sibelius user) can do? If not, it's a cute little gizmo to dork around with a simple little Bach minuet as seen in the video, but not much more, and certainly just a child's toy in the eyes of a  professional composer/arranger.

2) What can I learn by visiting the website the video mentions? Well, I didn't learn anything- there is basically nothing there!

http://www.thinkmusictechnology.com/

So, especially in regard to #2, I decided this was all a bunch of hype over a cutesy, sophomoric Apple-ish trendy gizmo that may not even really exist (yet?).

So I have basically not shared this video and haven't commented on it- I didn't want to call anyone out for thinking it was way cool. But today I saw the following  item from Philip Rothman's blog debunking the product and video, and the evidence is pretty damning. It just goes to show you that many people looking to get some cheap publicity today blindly substitute social media flash for substance, put the cart before the horse, and as one commenter suggested, failed the market test of "under-promise and over-deliver".

Here is a link to Rothman's entire blog, and below are some excerpts for you: (oh by the way, my first music software program allowed a total of four backward edits, so if you screwed somethting up you often had to start laying out an entire piece over to get what you really wanted!):

  
Makers of music handwriting app video used Sibelius and GoodReader to create dramatization

by Philip Rothman

The makers of the video, an entity called ThinkMusic Technology, did not mention that the video was a dramatization. In fact, they led excited followers on Twitter to believe the app, as demonstrated, was real:

I am now certain that every single one of the music notation examples shown in the video, were, in fact, simply images exported from Sibelius using settings identical to, or very close to the defaults of the House Style “Standard Opus (Times)” and modified using GoodReader, a widely popular annotation app. No actual handwriting recognition, MIDI input, or other app functions were taking place. Everything shown in the video was a clever simulation, and not at all indicative of any working app.


Several requests for ThinkMusic to comment specifically on whether or not the music examples in the video were a series of images produced using Sibelius, and manipulated using conventional software, went unanswered.

ThinkMusic has not demonstrated that they can develop a working app, but they have succeeded in several areas. First, they have shown an ability to create an impressive marketing campaign and capture people’s interest through social media. Second, they have identified a desire for a successful product that would actually do what they have dramatized in their video. Moreover, they have some genuinely good ideas about how such an app might function. Avid’s Scorch and MakeMusic’s Finale SongBook are read-only apps and are tied into each company’s proprietary file format. MuseScore says that they have an app in development, but it is called “MuseScore Player” and so, it too will presumably be a read-only app. Notation apps such as Symphony Pro and Notion have yet to gain wide acceptance in the market.

Perhaps we will see an app “coming soon” from ThinkMusic or another developer after all. However, a fully functioning app is long way from a product idea (even one as cleverly dramatized by ThinkMusic) — especially if the app is to function with the ease and fluidity demonstrated in the video. If ThinkMusic does produce an app, was their reliance on Sibelius’s output and GoodReader’s drawing mode in marketing the app’s key features (especially without a disclaimer) a forgivable indiscretion? Or does it fundamentally undermine their product? Only the market, and perhaps some lawyers, will decide.