Input Methods for Music Notation Software

Mus 253/CS 275AStanford UniversityNotation 1

Music 253 2009 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 2

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

Not

atio

n (p

hysi

cal p

age)

“Logical work” (hum

an concepts)

Music 253 2009 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 4

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 253 2009 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 5

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 http://www.esac-data.org

(Unsigned)

- Octave

+ Octave

Music 253 2009 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 6

Guido: Pitch and duration components in input

Pitch (key no.)

Note duration

Note prolongation

Octave number

Pitch inflection

Data representation stored

"FrereJacques"

60 7248

Music 253 2009 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 7

Guido: An Example

Music 253 2009 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 8

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 253 2009 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 9

Hybrid systems (MuseData)

MIDI and ASCII data treated in bilaterally MuseData Humdrum Guido

Advantages Best of both systems

Disadvantages Learning curve