Input Methods for Music Notation Software Mus 253/CS 275A Stanford University Notation 1

Music Eleanor Selfridge-Field2 Input methods: Overview  ASCII code (from computer keyboard) SCORE, Guido  MIDI data from electronic keyboard From mouse Examples: Finale, Sibelius  Hybrid systems MuseData  Automatic recognition SharpEye Sound Notation (physical page) “Logical work” (human concepts)

Music Eleanor Selfridge-Field3 Stages in the creation of musical scores  Manual Write score by hand Send to publisher Pass to editor Pass to typesetter Send to author for approval Reproduce  Computer-based Multiple methods Edit oneself Publish oneself

Music Eleanor Selfridge-Field4 ASCII-Based Input Methods  Systems designed before 1982 (no personal computers)  DARMS, SCORE, P&E 1985 (no MIDI tools) 1988 (no SMFF)  Finale 1990 (no Windows) 1995 (no HTML)  Advantages Precision, extent, accuracy  Disadvantages Systems arbitrary, integration with other tools limited

Music Eleanor Selfridge-Field5 Essen Associative Code (EsAC)  Music rep. in general Pitch name Pitch inflection Octave name or number  EsAC specifics Pitch = number Inflection = symbol Octave = symbol See (Unsigned) - Octave + Octave

Music Eleanor Selfridge-Field6 Guido: Pitch and duration components in input Pitch (key no.) Note duration Note prolongation Octave number Pitch inflection Data representation stored "FrereJacques"

Music Eleanor Selfridge-Field7 Guido: An Example

Music Eleanor Selfridge-Field8 MIDI Input (Finale, Sibelius, Capella)  Sources Pre-existing files Electronic keyboard Other MIDI instruments Computer mouse  Advantages Familiar interface, transparency  Disadvantages Control of layout, timing Control of enharmonic notations Lack of graphical refinements Capella virtual keyboard (above)

Music Eleanor Selfridge-Field9 Hybrid systems (MuseData)  MIDI and ASCII data treated in bilaterally MuseData Humdrum Guido  Advantages Best of both systems  Disadvantages Learning curve