Blog #4: Reading Reflections for 9/7/2009

Articles referenced for this posting:
“11 Innovative Uses for Notation Software” by Scott Watson
“Notation Software: The Ultimate Tool for the Music Teacher” by Dr. Tom Rudolph
“Notation Software: A Versatile Tool for Music Educators” by C. Floyd Richmond

After working with Sibelius more closely and reading these articles, I certainly believe that it is essential for music teachers to be familiar with notation software programs. I think that its most important use for the ensemble director is its ability to transcribe music. It is unwise to assume that every piece of repertoire ordered for a school band will arrive fitted for that specific group. Often, there may be parts that are too technically challenging for some players – Rudolph mentioned that often he needs to rearrange the clarinet parts for his young students who cannot cross the break yet. Or the orchestration may not align with the band’s roster. Often a band director will have far too many saxophones but almost no tubas. Putting the “second altos” on the tuba part would be a good solution.

Watson added that notation software can reduce the stress in an ensemble director’s life. He explained an example where the band was needed to play for a school assembly. Rather than having the entire group participate, he rearranged the music to fit a more select ensemble of volunteers only. The ability to transpose music and print out new parts could yield wonderful chamber music. A director could prepare music for small groups which the players are generally interested in practicing and performing. I do think that this takes a degree of skill on the director’s part, however. Watson mentioned the possibility of transcribing a piano accompaniment for a solo instrument into band parts. I’m not sure if I’m competent enough to do this. He even described a situation where he wrote a harmonic accompaniment for a trumpet solo, and, although he wrote that the accompaniment was simple, I’m afraid that still might be out of my league of compositional skills. Encouraging students to write their own meloldies, though, and then allowing them to put their work onto Sibelius sounds exciting, though. They could begin with manuscript paper, writing a melody for their instrument only and then later it could be imported into Sibelius. Students would be incredibly motivated to see their work printed on the page.

I had difficulty relating to Richmond’s article, however, because mostly wrote about activities for which each student would need access to a computer. If I am working with a school ensemble of eighty, it would be hard to get each student onto a computer. Richmond advocates compositional projects through the use of notation software but I really think that the basics of theory should be learned using paper and pencil first before a new computer program is introduced. Richmond and Watson referred to a notation software’s ability to play back music for the students. I understand that Sibelius can do this but I think original recordings would be preferable. When learning a piece of repertoire students should listen to a real ensemble perform with real people making real musical decisions. This will widen their musical vocabulary. Listening to several interpretations will also help.

Overall, I think that implementing notation software into the classroom can really impress and motivate students. I liked how Watson noted that his students loved to have music dedicated to them. This is so true and it can certainly provoke a compositional interest in them. My greatest fear is that I am still unfamiliar with computers in general. Statements such as “Any modern sequencing software can export a recorded performance as a standard MIDI file that can then be imported into a notation program for playback” (Richmond, p.39) are really difficult for me to understand. To be honest, I don’t know what a sequencing program is right now. “Quantization settings” was also above me. I look forward to defining these terms in the near future.