Watch Daniel on The Audio Podcast #104

Daniel Spreadbury

Today I had the pleasure of being interviewed by Scott, Adam and Samuel of The Audio Podcast about our in-development scoring application. We discuss why we need another scoring application, what benefits a Lua plug-in API might bring to users, and I completely avoid the question of when the application will be unleashed upon the world.

Thanks to the team for having me on the show! I had a great time.

15 thoughts on “Watch Daniel on The Audio Podcast #104

  1. Brad Fuller

    lua? hmmm… I’ve programmed a game in Lua…. but, I found it restrictive.. I’d love to have something like Smalltalk as well as a traditional western notation graphic interface of your announced goals. But, that might extend your schedule.

    Why not Python? An API that will allow the creation of other interfaces (e.g. IANNIX) would be beneficial.

    Reply
  2. Derek Bourgeois

    Important though the look of the music is, we managed to survive for years with handwritten scores and parts made by professional copyists because of the rising and prohibitive cost of engraving. In no way did the music itself suffer from this, and nobody listening could tell whether the players were playing from printed or handwritten parts. So I would suggest that the look of the printed music is a luxury – an important luxury, but a luxury nevertheless. For me far more important in this digital age is just how well the program is capable of aurally rendering what is written, so I hope the new program will address this with the same diligence as implementing how the music looks. I rarely look at my printed scores, but I frequently listen to how they sound.
    I think it’s true to say that most composers are more interested in hearing how their music sounds than how it looks. Both visual presentation and realistic sounds are very important so I hope they are both treated as seriously as the other by the new software..

    Reply
    1. Daniel Spreadbury Post author

      @Derek: We certainly will be putting plenty of effort into the playback side of our new application. We hope to have some significant advantages over other scoring products thanks to the fact that we will be building upon the world-class audio technology at the heart of Cubase.

      Reply
  3. Colin Douglas

    “I think it’s true to say that most composers are more interested in hearing how their music sounds than how it looks” – and hearing how it sounds, played by human musicians, is very much dependent on the legibility and layout of the music. From a performer’s point of view, it’s the clarity of the printed/handwritten part that is most important. I do however agree with you Derek, in hoping that both are treated as seriously as the other by the new software.

    Reply
  4. Jeffrey Stone

    I don’t use the computer to compose music like many composers do today. Sometimes I use Finale to control correctness of scoring but that is about all. I desperately need an engraving program to provide good quality copy for performing and publishing. My handwriting is not good enough and never has been. So I need the program for the final copy of my scores, preferably not too difficult to use but flexible enough to do modern, 21st century scores. I would even prefer a steep learning curve to limitations in notation. So in the question of sound over copy, I choose copy. Just my 2 cents.

    Reply
  5. Lewis Buckley

    I’m a conductor, composer, and publisher. For me, appearance trumps playback every time.

    As a conductor, rehearsal time is precious; the clearer and more predictable the appearance/layout, the less time wasted.

    As a composer, the more professional the music looks, the more seriously the players will take it.

    And as a publisher who takes great pains to make our music instantly playable and readable, most of the compliments we get from customers are about issues of appearance.

    So while playback is important when I’m wearing my composer hat (it’s good to be able to “proof listen” and make a decent demo audio), if I had to choose, appearance is the whole ball game.

    That said, of course I’d rather not have to choose. :-)

    Reply
  6. Tony Ward

    It seems to me in reading this thread that there is an inconvenient divide between the needs of the composer in the throes of the creative process, and the engraver in the process of accurately and clearly manifesting that process on the page. Compounding this is the legitimate need for composers in some genres to produce realistic playback from the app without the need to farm out to a DAW. My question is, can one application truly do justice to all? Should these processes be a suite separate but connected apps, or at least, very distinct modes within an app?

    Reply
  7. Bill McCance

    Why shouldn’t a single programme be capable of all of the above? It would be testament to the vision and skills of the programmers to achieve this. The idea of developing a suite of programmes smacks of profiteering. It’s been done in the cinema, making 2 or 3 films out of a single story (Harry Potter 7&8, The Hobbit).

    For me there isn’t a division of one thing being more important than the other, they are all critical. I want the best visual print possible, with the most flexible notation input possible and the best quality realistic instruments and playback possible. Oh yea. and all for $99.99. We can all dream can’t we…..

    Reply
  8. Ralph Middenway

    Discussion of appearance ‘versus’ playback strikes me as a waste of time.

    Ten years ago relatively primitive hardware precluded entirely satisfactory appearance AND playback.

    Today’s relatively advanced hardware means that BOTH are now possible.

    Both Sibelius and Finale were developed when hardware was primitive.

    ‘Steinbach’ (or whatever) is being developed on the basis of what is possible NOW, and they have the advantage of the up-to-the-minuteCuBase sound system.

    It is impossible to imagine that Daniel & Co could allow themselves to go off half-cocked

    Reply
    1. Michael Francis Davey (Mike)

      I operated Notator for a number of years and since then Sibelius. The great benefit in being able to Print a set of brass band parts plus a score in twenty minutes is obvious.
      The luxury of listening to a orchestral score played back in EW samples is also a great comfort; as most orchestras are not keen on playing new works by unknowns’
      Cobbling Sibelius with EW sounds is not for the faint hearted, so any improvement on that procedure would be welcomed by me

      Mike Davey

      ‘Eiriksmal; ‘The Anthem”’ – YouTube

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1ldaV-Alxo

      Reply
  9. Paul

    Why do not make much more effort in developing a program like NOTATEME ? Today there as million of Tablet computer with s-pen. I know so many composer that are waiting for a program to handwrite the music and than print it!

    Reply
    1. Daniel Spreadbury Post author

      @Paul: We’re delighted that programs like NotateMe exist, and the team at Neuratron have many years’ expertise in this area. Our team’s focus is on graphical excellence and flexibility both in terms of music representation and resulting notation. NotateMe is a great adjunct to our in-development application, but we’re not trying to solve the same problem. If you want something like NotateMe, good news: it’s already available, and you can go and download it now.

      Reply

Leave a Reply