Music Notation Software – Pros and Cons for Composers

There are several music notation programmes available for computers and tablets, but the brands that I suspect most composers use are Finale and Sibelius. Another excellent notation product is Notability Pro (for Mac only), which some composers I know swear is the best product out there, and is now free.

In today’s post, I will explore how the use of notation software can affect the composition process, in ways we may not realize, both positive and negative. The first seven points below list many of the unambiguously-positive aspects of using notation software, and the remaining points concern some of the potential challenges that can arise from its use, some of which we may be unaware of.

If any readers can think of pros and cons not listed below, please let me know via the "comments" area, and I'll add them to the list if merited.

Music Notation Software
Pros								Cons (or commentary on pros)
1. Can produce polished, publication-ready scores.								1. This is indeed true. However, it takes considerable skill, and the knowledge of all the minutiae of notation conventions, to produce publication-ready scores, whether one uses notation software or not. Because a score produced with notation software generally looks far better than a hand-copied score (although some highly-skilled hand-copyists can also produce beautiful scores), we may be seduced into thinking our score is as good as it needs to be, when in fact it may need a lot more detailed work to reach a point of being truly publication ready.
2. Scores look better than hand-copied scores.								2. This is generally true. I doubt that many students are trained in the art of hand-copying music any more (I was, which reflects the period in which I was trained (cretaceous)) – but it isn’t always true; a sloppy computer-notated score looks far worse than a beautiful and meticulous hand-copied score. Again, this is more a product of the user's limitations than of the software, however.
3. Pitches and accidentals are notated clearly and correctly.								3. No disadvantages! Here are some of the reasons this is such a valuable advantage for notation software: • Sometimes, in hand-copied scores, pitches are less than 100% clear because they are notated in such as way as to "spill" into the territory of an adjacent pitch. • Notation software also notates 2nds correctly. Sometimes, in a hand-copied score, students attempt to vertically align notes that are a second apart, which looks very messy. • Notation software also aligns accidentals correctly (again, students sometimes try to fit them on top of each other, causing collisions and all manner of visual mayhem).
4. Other score information, such as text and articulations, is clear (hand-written text can be somewhat challenging to read if a composer has poor calligraphy skills).								4. This again is generally true, unless the composer uses a font or font-size that is difficult to read.
5. You can remove or add bars without recopying entire pages. • It is also easier to change/add/remove notes and any other score information (such as dynamics, slurs, articulations, text, etc. • Software also lets you do A/B comparisons, listening to a version with bars added, and then comparing with a version with those bars removed.								5. This is a huge advantage of notation software; having to recopy an entire page by hand in order to add or subtract a few bars is such a hassle that it can become a disincentive to make such changes. Anything that gets in the way of making even small improvements in your compositions is a significant problem. •And yes, the possibility of doing numerous A/B listening comparisons is a tremendous advantage in using notation software.
6. Parts can be generated automatically. • This is a huge advantage in using notation software.								6. Generating parts can still involve some work, however, because you may need to adjust the layout, number of bars per system, fix any new collisions that may have shown up, plan page turns, do any necessary last-minute edits (you sometimes notice problems in parts that you didn't notice in the score), etc. But there's no question that generating parts is a much faster process with notation software.
7. Transpose, Invert, Retrograde, and other commands, as well as plug-ins. • Did you know that Finale has commands for melodic inversion, and retrograde? These (particularly inversion) can be useful when considering possibilities of how to grow/extend/transform a melodic idea. • There are also third-party plugins available, such as Patterson Plug-Ins for Finale,  which are designed to speed up and generally improve workflow.								7. Composers can obviously do these things without a computer, but the computer does them much faster. Plus, having these options so readily available makes it easier to try them in order to see if they can be used in your composition.
8. Dynamics look as they should, and are usually well positioned.								8. Notation software does indeed produce dynamics that are beautiful. • They are not always well positioned however; in Finale, you have probably found many cases where a dynamic collides with something else, such as an accidental, note, or slur, which requires the user to re-position the dynamic, or the other objects with which it collides; I'm not sure this happens as frequently in hand copied scores. • One potential issue to be aware of is that in some software programmes, a dynamic intended for one instrument (e.g., below the flute staff) in an orchestral score can show up in an adjacent instrument's part (e.g., above the clarinet) when parts are generated. When positioning a dynamic, Finale uses a temporary dashed line to indicate the note to which the dynamic is attached, which reduces the likelihood of misplaced dynamics. • There are potential playback issues in the use of dynamics, described in section 9.
9. You can hear what you write as you write it, performed at the indicated tempo, or at a slower tempo if you prefer, which allows you to listen repeatedly, carefully, and critically. • You can also hear and evaluate any indicated tempo changes (including rit. and accel.), and dynamic levels (including cresc. and dim.). • You can also listen to the composition, or a section thereof, repeatedly, tweaking it until it sounds as good as you can make it, no matter what time of day you play it, and no matter what your mood is.								9. Being able to hear an approximation of what you write in real time is a huge benefit of notation software. • There are, however, significant issues or limitations in relying too heavily on MIDI playback as a realistic indicator of what your music will sound like; these include: Unwittingly writing parts that are either extremely difficult or even unplayable, because the computer plays them without any problem whatsoever (!). A computer plays unidiomatic lines flawlessly, while a performer might struggle in attempting to play them, or even refuse to play the piece. The computer can lull the user into thinking that the line is perfectly idiomatic, when in fact it is extremely difficult or even impossible. I am not sure how much different this would be in a hand-copied score, but in producing a hand-copied score, a composer usually spends hours playing each line, usually on a piano, which might flag any such issue; Balance problems: The balance in a MIDI ensemble is often not very realistic;  Further to  balance problems, sometimes, in an attempt to bring out a line that is insufficiently prominent, we may temporarily give it an extreme dynamic boost, such as marking it fff instead of f, so we can hear it better in the MIDI playback, but then forget to change the dynamic to its correct value (fff back to f) before giving the parts to the performers, resulting in performers blasting the heck out of that line in the first rehearsal, when all we intended was for it to be more prominent than the lines around it. Or sometimes, an inexperienced composer may use an extreme dynamic boost (e.g., f to fff) intentionally, thinking it necessary to bring out the line to the desired level, perhaps not realizing that if a line is marked  f, while the other instruments are marked mf, the performers and/or conductor will make sure that the f line is heard more prominently than the others. It is also possible that the previous example (extreme dynamic boost) might be the result of poor orchestration; if a musical line is insufficiently prominent in MIDI playback, perhaps it needs to be reinforced in some way (e.g., octave doublings, or the addition of other instruments to that line), or perhaps the material around it is too busy and needs to be thinned out in some way. Unrealistic representation of the nuanced colour and dynamic changes in different registers of an instrument or voice;  MIDI playback is only as good as the quality of the samples  in your computer's sound-bank.  Glissandi, heard through MIDI playback, usually elicits a chuckle from class members, presumably because it often sounds so unrealistic or even ridiculous. The computer will play any glissando, even impossible ones, which may entice composers into writing impossible glissandi. We need to be aware of the possible glissandi for different instruments; always show your work to a performer of that instrument to be sure.
10. Copy and Paste. • Musical material, from the smallest ideas to entire sections, is often repeated, either immediately or brought back later; the Copy & Paste functions let you do this with great ease.								10. Again, a very useful tool. I recommend exercising some restraint in its use, however. • One of the most wonderful attributes of great classical compositions is that ideas are often altered in some way when repeating or recapitulating them. This provides both the comfort of familiarity, since we recognize the ideas, but also an element of surprise, if we recognize that some aspects have been changed. • You can make such modifications when repeating ideas in notation programmes, of course, but, at least in student work, it seems as though the ease with which the paste command can be executed often leads to not making modifications. • My advice to students is to explore modification possibilities when re-using (pasting) an earlier idea into a later section.
11. Other limitations and challenges.								11. Using different metres in different staves simultaneously, and having bar lines that don't necessarily line up with each other (vertically).
12. Other limitations and challenges.								12. Using a time grid at the top of your score (e.g., a grid in 5 second increments), with no bar lines. • You can hide bar lines, of course, and create a graphic to represent the time grid, but this involves more work than it would if done by hand.
13. Other limitations and challenges.								13. Graphic notation can be difficult or even impossible. • Again, you can create graphics on a computer, but it takes some skill to do this well, and doing it by hand is often faster.
14. Other limitations and challenges.								14. Oversize metres in orchestral scores (e.g., a large 4/4 that spans the height of the entire woodwind section) are either impossible or very tricky. Oversize metres are generally much appreciated by conductors, because they can be easily read at a glance. When my orchestral music has been played, I often get the score back with oversize metre changes written in by the conductor.
15. Other limitations and challenges.								15. Unless you invest in an expensive sample library that includes extended techniques in all instrument families, your MIDI playback will probably not be able to reproduce such sounds. This is not necessarily an impediment to using extended techniques, but I suspect they would be used more if we could hear a reasonably-accurate reproduction of these techniques during playback of our scores. These performance techniques include: col legno, col legno battute, sul pont., sul tasto, different mute types for brass instruments, hand-stopped notes (for horn), play with bells in the air, multiphonics, flutter-tongue, harmonics, harmonic gliss. ("seagull effect") for strings (particularly for cello), senza vibrato, scraping sound created by heavy bow pressure and slow bow speed, a myriad of sounds available by slapping, scraping, muting, picking (with a guitar pick) strings inside of a piano, prepared piano sounds, etc.

Have I missed any significant advantages or disadvantages in my list? Are there times when you feel the notation software is pushing you to notate an idea in the way that it wants, as opposed to the way that you want? Please let me know in the comments section below, and thanks for reading!

Removing a Key Signature from Transposing Instruments in Finale

When you write for a transposing instrument (clarinet in Bb or A, saxophone in Eb, horn in F, trumpet in Bb or D) in Finale, it automatically inserts a key signature. This is fine for tonal music, but it is not desirable for non-tonal music.

You can write for the transposing instrument "in C," meaning the pitches will sound as written (not transposed) by unchecking the "transposition" box in the "Staff Attributes" dialog box (click on Staff Tool, double-click on the staff of the transposing instrument to get there).  This gets rid of the key signature (assuming there is none in your score), but it does not solve the problem, because you will eventually have to transpose the part so that the performer can read it properly, and at that point, Finale will insert a key signature.

Here is how you remove the key signature while maintaining the correct transposition. I use Finale 2011, so for later versions, I have pasted the instructions from Finale's website.

---

For Finale 2011 and earlier:

1. Make sure your score does not have a key signature by selecting "C major" or "A minor" as your key. Then…
2. Select (by clicking) the Staff Tool.
3. Double click the staff of the transposing instrument. This opens the "Staff Attributes" dialog box.
4.  If you want the correct transposition in your score, make sure the "Transposition" box has a check mark. If you want a "C score" (untransposed score), keep it unchecked.
5. To the right of the "Transposition" check-box, is a button labelled "Select…"  Click on this.
6. This takes you to the "Staff Transpositions" dialog-box.
7. At the top of this dialog box, make sure the "Transposition: Key Signature" button is on. Do NOT use the drop-down menu to the right of these words to select your transposition; this will insert a key signature into the clarinet part, which is what we are trying to remove!
8. Instead, click the "chromatic" radio button, and THEN select the desired transposition from the drop-down menu next to the word "chromatic." 
9. Click "OK" twice to exit these dialog boxes and return to your score.

---

For Finale 2012:

1. Open the ScoreManager window. (Windows menu > ScoreManager).
2. Select the Transposition option and click Other under the instrument list tab.
3. Click the radio button next to Chromatic (under some circumstances, you may need to change the transposition level if it is not already set to the appropriate interval).
4. Click OK to leave the ScoreManager window and return to your score.

---

For Finale 2014, the process is simpler than in previous versions.

To set up a new document without a key signature:

1. Go to File > New > Document with Setup Wizard.
2. Select the desired ensemble or click Next to choose individual instruments and continue through the Wizard.
3. On the fourth page of the Setup Wizard, choose Keyless from the key signature drop-down menu.
4. If desired, choose the key for the tonal center and select Hide Key Signature and Show Accidentals.
5. Click Finish.

To set a section without a key signature by using the Key Signature tool:

1. Select the Key Signature tool.
2. Choose Keyless from the key signature drop-down menu.
3. If desired, choose key for the tonal center and select Hide Key Signature and Show Accidentals.
4. Ensure that the measure range is correct and click OK.

Adding multiple-measure ossias in Finale

There appears to be no way to add multiple-measure ossias in Finale. An ossia measure is an alternate measure, meaning a bar that illustrates a different way of playing a passage, or that suggests how ornaments might be performed, or that explains how "swing" notes should be performed, etc.

Finale has a handy feature called an "ossia tool," but it has two flaws: It only allows you to add a single ossia measure at a time, and it does not include ties. This last is obviously a glitch, and I see they finally fixed it in Finale 2009, although I believe they still don't allow you to add multiple ossia bars (i.e., alternative version of bars 23-25).

→ The workaround is to create a graphics file of the multiple ossia measures, and paste it in the desired location on the page.

1. Notate the ossia bars somewhere. This could be at the end of your file (i.e., on an extra page), or in a different file. If your ossia bars are on only one staff (as opposed to all staves), you may wish to optimize staff systems for those bars so that only the desired bar is shown (Page Layout Tool/Page Layout Menu). Don't worry about the size; you can adjust that later.

2. Use the Graphics Tool to select the ossia bars (double-click and drag), then choose "Export Selection" from the Graphics menu, and choose the desired format from the dialogue box (EPS, PICT, TIFF; DPI resolution, etc.), and save it to your desired location (some place you can easily find it!). Make sure you choose a very high resolution for best print quality.

3. Go to the page on which the ossia measures will be placed, and choose "Place Graphic" from the Graphics menu (Graphics Tool). It will then ask you to locate the graphics file, and once you do this, click Okay. The ossia measures should show up somewhere on your page; now you just grab the image (click and drag) and position it wherever you wish. If you want to reduce the size, which is common for ossia bars, control-click the graphics image on your page and choose "Edit Graphic Attributes," then enter the desired height and width percentages in the "Scale" section.

• Only thing to add is that this is now attached to your page, so if you change the measures on that page in any way you may have to manually reposition the graphic file.

Notation Software Woes

Once again, this post is based on a response I made to a student's journal/blog entry…

The notation programme I have used for the past 15 years or so is called "Composer's Mosaic," by Mark of the Unicorn (MOTU). As you might imagine, I feel extremely comfortable with it, even though it is a more limited programme than Sibelius, Finale, or Notability Pro [click the links if you wish to find out more about them]. But, because I'm usually composing to meet a deadline, the thought of having to learn new notation software AND meet a deadline is pretty daunting and stressful.

Unfortunately, MOTU stopped supporting Mosaic in 1997. This means that I have to keep an ancient computer around for the sole purpose of running Mosaic, because it doesn't run under the current Mac operating system (OS X).

Obviously, at some point this will no longer be an option — all computers die eventually — so, I bought Sibelius and Finale a few years ago, intending to try both to see which I liked better, and then stick with that one.

But the frustration of having to learn a new notation programme while keeping the creative flow going, AND while trying to meet commission deadlines, is huge… So far, I have written one piece in Finale (Dream Dance, which Kristina Szutor played in the 2008 Newfound Music Festival), and I feel I am slowly getting the hang of it, although the number of times I have to go to the manual to look up how to do something really basic is ridiculous, and a real inspiration killer.

Nevertheless, having learned Finale well enough to have completed one piece, I am ready to try a more ambitious composing project with Finale.

Not to say that Dream Dance wasn't ambitious; what I mean is that, having muddled my way through the process of using Finale to notate a fairly lengthy solo piano piece, I think I may be ready to try writing chamber music with Finale next.

I should probably give Sibelius a try too. I know a lot of people insist that it's easier to use than Finale, although in my very cursory attempts to do anything with it I still found it less intuitive and more inflexible than I was hoping for. But I think that would be true of any notation programme.

Incidentally, one programme that really intrigues me is Notability Pro. It only works on Mac OS X, but it is now FREE (it was not free originally)! Most people, when they see that something is free, conclude that it isn't a high-quality product, but I am told that, not only is it of high quality, but some of my composer friends say it is superior to Finale or Sibelius.

Notability Pro describes itself as:

• "easily the most sophisticated music notation software available on any platform. NoteAbility combines both musical intelligence and graphical flexibility in a direct and intuitive graphical user interface. Notate anything from simple melodies to complex avant garde orchestral music, play the score on your MIDI synthesizer or using Quicktime Musical Instruments and print a publishable copy of your score on any OS-X compatible printer."

And here's the clincher:

• "If you have been frustrated by the awkwardness and inflexibility of other notation programs, or by the time it takes to learn them, then you definitely should have a look at NoteAbility Pro."

Sounds pretty impressive, does it not? You may be thinking, 'but why believe the hype on the company's web page?" Mostly, I feel the same way; be wary of hype!

However, in this case, I am more inclined to believe it than not, because the product was developed by Dr. Keith Hamel, an outstanding composer and professor at the University of British Columbia, and he happens to be a friend of mine. Basically, if Keith says his programme is both easy to use and the most sophisticated music notation software out there, then I'll take his word for it.

Also, as I mentioned above, some composer friends of mine swear by it (not at it, which is something I occasionally did while learning Finale), telling me it is better, and easier to learn, than both Sibelius and Finale. And, in addition to now being free, Notability Pro does not charge for upgrades. Both Sibelius and Finale release yearly "upgrades" and charge fairly hefty upgrade fees for them.

[EDIT (2016): Sibelius and Finale seem to have abandoned the yearly updates. Sibelius is now being sold "by subscription" only, as far as I can tell, meaning they charge you a monthly fee to use their software. This seems lame in the extreme. Finale's current version is 2014 [as of 2017, the current version is 24.5], and you can still buy the software outright (academic price: US$350).]

[FURTHER EDITS (2018):

1. Finale has continued to produce updates, but they no longer appear to be yearly (which is a good thing, IMO; upgrades cost a lot).

2. I'm not sure if Sibelius has changed their "by subscription only" model, but I don't think so, according to what a couple of students have told me.

3. After completing "Dream Dance" (which is mentioned above) in Finale, I ended up using nothing but Finale for the last several years. The reason is the obvious one; once I became comfortable with it, and those long, inspiration-crushing attempts to figure stuff out became mostly a thing of the past, then it became pretty easy to use, and I'm content with it.

4. I'd still like to try Notability Pro at some point, but I'm not sure I want to try it badly enough to go through the learning curve for yet another notation software programme. If I do, perhaps I'll come back here and report on it.]

The point is that I know some of you are just learning notation software for the first time so that you can use it in this course, and you are running into frustrations, and I can relate to this!

But, try to persevere (I seem to use that word a lot, don't I?), because it's useful to be able to create beautifully-notated scores with computer software.

And if you get stuck or frustrated, ask for help; you can ask in class, or ask me outside of class, or ask other students, because the number of students who are knowledgeable about Finale seems to increase every year.