Fugal Science, Volume 1, Number 4

You will have to read the first three installments in this series to get much out of this post.

To review, we started out with a fugue at the octave (Two-part invention format), turned that into a fugue with a tonal answer at the fifth, and then introduced some character to finish it as a piece of music. That's as far as I could take it in two voices with the elements I limited myself to.

So, this is the initial three-voice fugue, and I had to open it up an octave to make things work, so it's for string trio.

Here's the M4A audio: Fugue Number 4



I had to open the exposition up an octave, otherwise the answer and counter-answer would have converged on a unison. This worked fine in the four-voice string quartet version of the fugue I wrote first, but it didn't float my boat in only three. As a result, the answer and counter-answer begin a twelfth apart, just as in the guitar versions.

For the three-voice subject statement, I had to create a new element, which is a second countersubject. Many of the old school fugal theorists didn't like third or fourth lines that had so much the character of harmonic fill-ins - I'm thinking of Andre Gedalge - but if you do them right, they can have plenty enough character as independent lines. And, when you have an interesting and active primary countersubject, they are often the only kind you can write. This second countersubject is so distinctive that it would actually make a very good fugue subject. And yes, that gives me some ideas going forward.

Since this is just the initial three-voice version, I again have taken the approach of changing as little as possible to bring it into perfect balance. That means that the plan is arranged around the idea of presenting all of the possible two-voice duets in a logical order. As a result, the piece is merely competent and not killer. It does contain some killer new elements, however.

Once the viola part rests after 16 - first in/first out - episode one proceeds with the outer voices and is just like all of the first episodes that have come before.



I've probably read 99.9% of all of the old treatises and textbooks on counterpoint and fugue that have been translated into English over the years, and almost invariably they take the position that three-voice fugues offer the best combination of harmonic fullness and lineal independence. I, however, find them difficult and lacking: Four voices is easiest for me, which is why that's usually where I start.

A great example of the difficulty and awkwardness that can crop up in three voices is the transition from the end of the first episode to the first middle entries here: The only way you can change the thematic entrance order in three voices is to begin a statement in a voice that is already active, versus a more effective entrance from a voice that is resting. At least this one comes after the bass has had a whole note, which is the next best thing to following a period of rests. I had to do this, because without this particular arrangement - the outer voices - the entire rest of the fugue would be impossible. I'll explain how it came to this in a minute.

Musically, by the way, this entire section is exactly as it was in the previous guitar version. However, the section stirkes the listener differently now, as the countersubject is not a new element (It was in the exposition).

A larger problem is that the second countersubject is not employed here: It would work perfectly with a truncated first statement and then a complete second statement, but that will have to await the first four-voice version (Where I'll also be able to rotate the elements between voices), or a later three-voice version that includes more structural and formal elements.



Look first at the new element that starts in forty-four: In order for the thematic entrance to be on top with the violin, this section must be a duet between the viola and cello.

A word about voice exits: If the voice has a whole note during the dominant chord before the cadence - that would be on either sol or re. - then it does not have to participate in the actual resolution. If, however, the voice is on an active tone and/or is less than a whole note, it does (This would be fa or ti.).

Here, in this MIDI/Soundfont version, the violin seems to obscure the beginning of the duet, but in a live performance the instrumentalists would fix that quite easily and tactfully.

At forty-four is the old, "interlude" that has the subject over the bass line of the primary episode, but I found that the lead voice of the old episode also works in this combination... by only changing one note. That would be the fourth note in the viola part at forty-six, which is now a D but which used to be a G. Needless to say, a wonderful discovery. I went back and changed that note in the versions without the subject too.

When you discover combinations like this post facto, oftentimes some interesting modal harmonic successions occur: In this case, there is a D minor seventh sonority in a 4/2 arrangement in forty-six, which doesn't sound particularly strange here, but just wait until I invert it.



Note first that the viola had to participate in this resolution because it is a fa-mi formula, and also the previous note was a half. Also note that the viola's first cadence was to the tonic, and this one is to the dominant (Even if it is functioning as the major third in the relative). Otherwise, the music in this duet is unchanged from the previous guitar version, with the exception of the single note in the episode mentioned earlier.

That leads to a duet between the upper voices at sixty, which must be that way because of the next section. The music itself is again unchanged from the previous version.



At sixty-nine is the second three-voice combination of the episode and the subject, and in the previous fugue this lead into the pedal section, which it also does here, only in a different manner. Now, the pedal is introduced by the cello, who just holds the last note of the subject over. During the pedal point proper, the viola has a new part that perfectly fleshes out the combination and which also increases the energy of the final half-cadence magnificently. This produces an air of invincible inevitability as the viola descends through the cadence toward what can only be the beginning of the recapitulation canon.

Note that in measure seventy-one there is a root position G minor seventh chord. Groovy, baby.

Since we have three voices to work with, we get a three voice concluding canonic stretto (I composed the subject as a four-voice canon, remember).



One of the elements that is improved over the two-voice extraction is the final hyper-stretto between the subject in the lead, and the augmented subject in the bass. First of all, the pickup figure in eighty-six is now to a non-thematic part, so the thematic entrances stand out better. Secondly, the third voice mediates effectively by more completely defining the harmonic context. Sure, the listener is going to be at least subconsciously aware that the minor-ninth-plus-octave in eighty-eight belongs to the V(m7m9) sonority, but having the minor seventh present makes things much clearer. Also, at the beginning of ninety, we get a complete augmented triad that is just awesomely bad ass.

The fun continues as the third part adds to the power of the already powerful conclusion too.

So then, the plan is: Exposition, outer voice duet, lower voice duet, three voice interlude, outer voice duet, upper voice duet, three voices from the concluding episode on. Nicely structured and balanced. How I finally arrived at this arrangement solution is a great old trick: Work from the end of the fugue back to the beginning.

I had the exposition and the hyper-stretto - alpha and omega - and the three-voice recap canon was obvious too. Then, the pedal section was obvious, and only a duet between the upper voices could lead into it. An outer voice duet was the best preparation for the upper voice duet, and the three-voice interlude could only be preceded by a lower voice duet, so that lead back to the first outer voice duet. That's when I found the exposition and first middle entries could only be joined as they are: The exposition-following episode can only be between the two outer voices.

I'm not at all convinced that this fugue will survive long without modification, but I am convinced this is the best arrangement for this limited number of elements. I'm currently working on an exhaustive analysis of all of the possible combinations this subject and countersubject can possibly make - I finally cracked a mechanical solution to Sergi Taneiev's Convertible Counterpoint formulas - and that may very well redefine these fugues all the way back to Number 1. That will be next, but it's going to be a while.

Read More

Fugal Science, Volume 1, Number 3

To recap, the first version of this fugue was a fugue at the octave - what Bach called a two-part invention - and then, I made it a fugue with the answer at the fifth above - actually a twelfth in this guitar piece - by changing only the second five measures, and adding a new section in the subdominant. I had to add the new section to present a second statement of the answer. Otherwise, you would only hear the answer once in the exposition, which is an obvious imperfection (You need to read those posts first, or this won't make much sense to you).

As I stated at the conclusion of the previous post, I love the spartan and ascetic style I developed for those two fugues, but I've noticed a couple of opportunities to add some spice to the accompaniment parts (Countersubject and counter-answer). This, I believe, elevates the piece above a compositional/technical study into a genuine piece of music.

Here is the M4A audio file: Fugue Number 3



The only thing I added to the countersubject is the little lick in measure seven. Remembering that this started as a four-voice fugue for string quartet, that lick is in the counter-answer there. It adds gobs of color because - reading top to bottom - C, E, and G-sharp spell an augmented triad. This is also, due to fortunate placement, not overly difficult to execute on the guitar either.

This lick alone won't send shock waves through the fugue, because the counter-answer is only heard here in the exposition...



... but the corresponding lick I added to the countersubject will. In measure eighteen is the run I added, and it is a diminished scale - also called a 1 + 2 scale - that approaches every note in the diminished seventh arpeggio by half-step. Seven of the eight notes of that scale are in the lick, with only F-double-sharp missing. This idiom did not become, "normal" until the Romantic era - I can remember this same lick from Sergi Taneiev's Fourth Symphony off the top of my head - so it's not something you'd ever encounter in a Baroque fugue.

When you sharp so many scale degrees in a diminished scale lick like this, it's metaphorically like kicking up some dust: It takes it a while to settle, and it only settles by re-presenting the diatonic degrees. The following gradual descent of the countersubject fulfills this need perfectly, with the A-sharp altered tonic degree only being cancelled out by the A-natural in measure twenty. I absolutely adore this affect.

The new lick also makes the perfect dovetail joint here more obvious when it appears in measure twenty-two. After that point, the rest of the page is the same as it was way back in Fugue Number 1.



The already dramatic modulation to the dominant level is also enhanced by the new lick, and even the surprise entrance of the subject in measure thirty-four plays a part, by extinguishing the raised tonic degree early, like a gust of wind suddenly blowing the kicked-up dust away. After that point, the new feature does not return until the statements in the subdominant; nothing else on this page is changed.



And there it is in measure fifty-six, adding drama by kicking up some dust.



Here too the new lick aids in setting the perfect dovetail into sharper relief, and appropriately - as this is near the end - this modulating dovetail is more dramatic than the first one.

For the previous fugue, the goal was to alter as little as possible to bring the piece back into balance and perfection - and on that level the piece is successful - but since this is the third appearance of a version of the first sequential episode, I felt it needed one last feature, and that is a proper pedal point section.

I achieved that by inserting a two measure sequential pattern after measure sixty-eight. Returning to the theme of adding meaning to the music by varied repetition, the augmented sixth at the end of sixty-eight was heard once before in a different context when the piece modulated to the dominant region.

Those two measures are not an arbitrary addition either, since they briefly tonicize the dominant and subdominant levels, which are the first and final regions the fugue traverses, respectively. It's a cool device that provides a moment of resistance before the recapitulation canon, and you really, really feel that, "the end is near" because of it.



Still no changes on the final page, so it's the same as in Fugue Number 1. The three versions respectively are 73, 88 and 90 measures long. I view Fugue Number 2 as a transitional form, but 1 and three are fully formed. Number 1 will end up in some collection or other, but this one will certainly end up as a movement in my next guitar sonata. I already have a killer Scherzo to go with it.

*****

After completing this, I wrote a couple of three-voice versions for guitar duo, but the piece needed to be opened up an additional octave, so Fugue Number four is for string trio. That's next.



For the story behind Sibelius 7 in the trash, the grim details are here and here.

Read More

Why Sibelius Will Forever Suck Compared to Encore

This is my Encore work environment as captured from the 23" 1920x1200 Apple Cinema HD Display that I use.



Is there really anything I have to explain? The operation of the user interface is obvious just by looking: You click on the palette that has the item you want to add, and then you click on the score to add it. Nothing could be simpler. Back in 1993, it took me less than 15 minutes to figure out how to use this interface, and I only ever used the manual for a reference guide. I needed to do that for only a few weeks.

By contrast, Sibelius 7 uses Tabs, so you have to click on the tab, then the item, and then the score: At least one more click to do every task. But it's worse than that, because what items are on which tab is not always intuitively logical.

See that long expressions palette on the left? Double-click on any button on that palette, and you can Edit the User Expression to whatever you want - this is where I create my analysis symbols &c. - and then place them on the score. After placement, you can change the cursor back to the arrow nib, and then move the placement of the item to wherever you want.

See the Arrow, Eraser, and Pencil icons at the top left of the score page? You click on those to change the function of the cursor. By contrast, Sibelius requires you to open a preference pane to change the behavior of the cursor.

Just to the right of those icons is the sequencer transport: Record, Play, and Stop. With Sibelius, you have to go to the appropriate tab first, adding a click to a click just to play. Also, Encore has a real MIDI sequencer that you can work with, while Sibelius has, "limited playback capabilities" even though it comes with three discs worth of sounds.



If I want to edit the properties of a note or notes, I can just click and drag the cursor to highlight what I want to edit, and then use the notes drop down to tie, slur, beam, flip stems, &c. The first time I tried to do this with Sibelius... the score moved. That's right, the cursor is defaulted to drag... which is a drag. Then I had to go to the aforementioned pref pane to fix it.

See at the bottom where there are shortcuts to the most common transpositions? I never did figure out how to do that in Sibelius, and Sibelius doesn't even play 8va/8vb clefs. Seriously, they are just there, "for show." So, my bass part here would be up in the cello range with Sibelius if I just imported this score as a Music XML file.

Sibelius does not use the main program status bar for anything except for File, Edit, View and Help basically. There are no equivalents of the Notes, Measures, or Score drop-downs as there are in Encore. This makes many tasks boatloads of needless extra work.



If I have tasks associated with measures, I again highlight what I want to change, and then I get an easy to understand list of operations I can perform. Note also that the dropdown menues teach you the keyboard shortcuts. Sibelius' anti-intuitive and user-hostile interface works very hard to keep everything hidden and secret. I have zero tolerance for that kind of crap.



When I need to do any score formatting, there's a drop-down for that too. I don't have to explain anything, do I? Clear as the Caribbean. See those MIDI functions at the bottom? Nothing like that in Sibelius (And, there's a MIDI tool on the tools palette at the upper left too: You can change MIDI settings at any point in any part by using that). Sibelius is a midiot.



To view or not to view? I can highlight and hide staves and control points here, and I can change from page to linear view too. Sibelius uses a slider for resizing, which is the ONE THING I liked about the program.



Since Encore uses the multiple floating palette paradigm, the Window drop-down is important: You can open as few or as many as you want, even ALL of them. I have every on I need visable, because if you click on the palette's title, it will cange to the next non-visible palette. That still tickles me, and I use the short Clefs palette at the lower left for that.

You'll also notice that the Staff Sheet is checked.



I keep the staff sheet out to the right of the score, but like all floating windows, you can put it anywhere. Clicking on a name opens an edit box, I can play, mute and solo parts/tracks here, also adjust the size of the staves and their transposition. This is what I looked in vain for in Sibelius.

You also assign MIDI channels and programs here. Again, Sibelius is a midiot.

I'm betting that this one post is enough to teach anybody how to use Encore. Meanwhile, the student of Sibelius hasn't gotten past the first tutorial.

*****

It's 2012. There is no excuse for anti-intuitive and user-hostile GUI's anymore. There is also no excuse for a music notation program not to have a decent sequencer. I actually had less trouble with Finale. At least it used some floating palettes; Sibelius only uses one for the notes.

I think a successful false advertising lawsuit could be brought against AVID for calling Sibelius, "easy to use." The fact of the matter is, Sibelius is THE MOST DIFFICULT OF ALL NOTATION PROGRAMS TO USE. And if you need a MIDI sequencer, you can't use Sibelius at all.



I think Ill put this at the end of every post for the rest of the year.

Read More

Fugal Science, Volume 1, Number 2

As I mentioned at the end of the first post in this series, I could have turned that fugue at the octave - the two-part invention format - into a fugue at the twelfth above just by changing measures six through ten with a tonal answer and a counter-answer, but then the piece would be less than perfect, because you'd only hear the answer once (You'll want to read that post before this one, because I'm not going to explain all the details the same way in this post).

So, in this version, I have changed the exposition to include the tonal answer and a counter-answer, and I have added a section near the end in the subdominant region that has both a subject and and answer. If you are keeping up, you'll realize that the answer in the subdominant is on the tonic level, and I use this relationship to re-modulate back home. The philosophy here is to change as little as possible to bring the piece back to a state of balance and perfection.

Any time you change something in any piece of music - especially when you add a new element or section - you will usually lose something you like, so the criteria for whether to change or not is this: Do I gain more than I lose in this transaction? I got an emphatic yes, because I added a clever section.

Here is the M4A: Fugue Number 2



As you can easily see, I only changed the second five measures by replacing the previous subject and countersubject combination with an answer counter-answer one. Measures 1-5 and 11-16 are still exactly the same. The new tonal answer/counter-answer section adds a lot of energy to the piece, and the way the voices converge by step into the first episode is superior to the previous version.



There are no changes on this page whatsoever, but the perfect dovetail now means something different to the listener, because this is the first time you hear the countersubject.

As an aside, varied repetition adds meaning to music. This second episode makes the first episode mean more by being a varied repetition of it, and this episode means more because of the previous version: Win/win. IMO, what makes a lot of fugues tedious is that there is not enough repetition and corresponding added meaning. Just because you can compose a new episode whenever you need one doesn't mean you should: It may not even be the most effective thing to do.



No changes here either.



I only had to change measure 54 to change the modulation from the tonic to the subdominant, and I was sorry to see the cool pedal meld go, but the following section more than makes up for that trivial loss.

Starting in 55 we get the subject and countersubject on the subdominant level. At 59, however, the answer interrupts, which leads to a very cool musical structure...



... which is a second perfect dovetail joint, only this one modulates. Cool huh? The rest of the previous answer is now accompanied by the countersubject, not the counter-answer, so we get a perfect dovetail and a re-modulation back home. Well, this gives the listener, "Deja vu all over again" because this episode is exactly like the first one, only it leads into the final canon now. That is all I absolutely had to change to bring the piece back into balance and a state of perfection, but it certainly is not all I could have changed.



No changes here, of course.

*****

Personally, I love this austere, ascetic style, but most people crave a little more personality in the music - including me - so there are a few opportunities to ornament these lines that will add a bit of acerbic wit to the ascetic style, and elevate the piece above a study to a more artful level. That will be for the next installment.



My brand new copy of Sibelius 7, in the trash with the eggshells and coffee grounds, where it belongs. I have zero tolerance for abjectly idiotic user interfaces and crippled feature sets. Sibelius is exactly garbage.

Read More

Fugal Science, Volume 1, Numbers 1-3

Back in 1994 when I was a Doctoral candidate at UNT, I came up with a magnificent and stately fugue subject that I composed as a four-part canon. With that subject, I composed a string quartet fugue that you can see and hear here.

That subject came out so spectacularly well, that I knew I would return to it at some point and write a series of fugal works with it. Well, back in 2010 I finally reduced it to its smallest form possible, that of a two-voice fugue at the octave (Bach called these two-part inventions, feeling they weren't worthy of the title of fugue, but they are just fugues with the answer at the octave), and that got me onto a very scientific track toward building it back up to a four voice fugue again.

As an aside, I have been preparing this post for a long, long time, and I was hoping to be able to use the Sibelius Classical Guitar sound file... but it was not to be. So, I'm still stuck with my soundfont collection. I'm so disgusted that Sibelius failed so spectacularly, that I'm planning to return to external sound modules again. Hard to believe that in 2012 there is still NO SINGLE PROGRAM THAT CAN TAKE A COMPOSITION FROM CONCEPTION TO FINISHED SCORE AND TRACK WITHIN THE COMPUTER. But, I'm sure the market for such things is small.

Anyway, here is the M4A file of Fugue Number 1 in A Minor for solo guitar.



One of the reasons that it took me so long to get back to this subject is that I had to completely invent a noble/stately fugal stile for the guitar. Bach's keyboard fugues usually built up to a constant eighth or sixteenth surface rhythm, but that's not an option for the guitar. Well, I have been reading about modal style vocal fugues, and I noticed that the rhythm is more based on quarter notes, and the rhythms breathe instead of building up to a motoric effect. By mixing the vocal and instrumental rhythmic styles - and basing things on quarter notes - I finally came up with the solution.

So, we get the five measure subject on the top system, and then the subject an octave higher combined with a countersubject on the second system. Measures eleven through sixteen are the first sequential episode, and there is no modulation.



Starting at seventeen, we get the subject again in the lower octave, but this time with the countersubject above. In 21, however, the countersubject is interrupted by a stretto entrance of the subject with a single measure of overlap. This would be a trivial stretto, except for the fact that I made a perfect dovetail joint out of it: The countersubject is unmodified at the point of interruption, and it continues in the bass with no modifications there either. I've never found anything like this in other fugues, so it may be a unique idea.

The unusual feature from measure 22 on is that the music is exactly the same as back in the exposition, which is basically unheard of in traditional fugues. What I'm doing is using repetition in different situations and varied repetition to affect the listener. Things get really strange by the time the second sequential episode comes up, because, "The Song Remains the Same." At the last possible point, the written-out trill figure interrupts to make a modulation to the dominant level. The bass line continues as it did the first time, and so there is an ever-so-brief augmented sixth on the final sixteenth note (Yes, that cross-rhythm is difficult to get just right). These kinds of things delight me, but I fear they are lost on most listeners.

Note that the exposition was ten measures, and the dovetail section was only nine. Also that the first sequential episode was six measures, but this one is only five. So, the first section of the fugue was sixteen measures, and the second is fourteen: The pace is quickening.



For the third section the piece modulates in a rather dramatic fashion to the dominant for a new, closer stretto with two measures of overlap. The rising bass line is really spooky, containing, as it does, an augmented triad rising into a diminished seventh arpeggio. At that point it has synched up with being the countersubject, but then the subject again interrupts in 34.

Note how the cumulative rhythm pauses there. I would never have done that in years past, but it does fall into the category of a, "dramatic pause." Once I discovered this, I decided to use it more. lol.

In 36 I got the opportunity to use an ascending chromatic tetrachord in the accompaniment line, and that leads into a slightly varied figure in 37. So, all of the joints are totally smooth, but it is not a strict dovetail.

In my fugal terminology, there are episodes and there are interludes. The first two that were variations are obviously episodes, and they have the trademark episodic sequencing. This third one comes in the place where I would put an interlude, because I discovered a wonderful contrapuntal combination as I was working with this material: The subject works over the bass line of the episode. Now, when I say, "works," I mean that in the strictest technical sense according to my laws of pure counterpoint. You'll have to look those up, as there is not space here.

Part of my two-voice style is the idea that, if it's OK in three or more voices, it's OK in only two. So, at the longest possible dramatic pause in 42, we get a diminished twelfth approached by parallel motion from a perfect twelfth above (I love this effect). Then, the music makes a turn and effects a modulation to the relative. So, this section is only one measure shorter - the extra measure of stretto overlap - because the middle entry was shorter, but the, "interlude" was as long as the previous episode.



In the relative major we get another measure of overlap, and it sounds very sunny and optimistic, which is a nice respite from too much... seriousness. ;^)

The final episode is like the first two, but starting out from the relative. It is also truncated an additional measure, so this section is only eleven measures. Finally, it melds nicely into a miniature pedal point, which is quite effective.

At 55 we're back to the tonic minor, so this is the recap, and I used the closest two-part canon for it. I believe the word is splendifferous.



At the end of the canon, I grafted the final measure of the countersubject onto the subject to get a six measures canon. That false ending is, well, false. That's why it's not emphatic.

The grand finale is a two-voice hyper-stretto - both parts start simultaneously - between the subject above, and the augmented subject in the bass. This was originally a four-voice texture, so that makes this two voice extraction very, um, dramatic. The pitch climax of the fugue is the F at the beginning of 64. The interval over the bass is a minor ninth plus an octave. This is super-pungent, but it works because the listener knows the harmony is a V(m7m9) sonority.

At 66, the interval is a diminished eleventh, plus an octave. This obviously implies an augmented triad, so this came out amazingly well. After the subject finishes, it launches into a rising sequential line that becomes chromatic in the second half of 69. This leads to a rousing final cadence confirmation on the bottom system. Discovering that written-out trill variation at the end was a nice moment.

So, eighteen years after I wrote the string quartet fugue, I figured out how to reduce it to have the least possible number of elements as a two-part invention, and to get it to work for the guitar.

*****

Now, I could turn this into a two-voice fugue with the answer at the twelfth just by using the tonal answer a fifth higher in measure six (And then composing a counter-answer, of course). That would work, but it would introduce an imperfection because you would only hear the answer in the original exposition: A new section will be necessary, which you'll see in the next post.

Read More

Sibelius 7 Sucks

Well, I talked myself into buying Sibelius 7 because the classical guitar sound they have is marvelous (I heard another composer's score with that sound). Problem is, THERE IS NO SOUND OUTPUT. I really, really hate stuff like this, because it's 2012 and there is no excuse for user-hostile interfaces anymore. Especially on a program that I spent several hundred dollars on.

My test for notation programs is simple: Can I figure out the basics intuitively, without needing manuals or tutorials? If not, it's a failure. Sibelius is a failure, just like Finale was (Another program I spent several hundred dollars on only to toss in the trash after a few hours of miserable frustration). Only Encore and Guitar Pro 5 have ever passed my test, so those are what I use (GP5 only when I need TAB, which is hardly ever). After using Encore for nearly twenty years, it is still the only one that allows a fast enough workflow for a COMPOSER/ARRANGER to use. Sibelius and Finale are only for digital typesetters, publishers, and those into self-flagellation.

I figured this might happen though, so I was prepared to only use Sibelius for the sounds by importing Music XML files and MIDI files I created with Encore. Even that failed.

When I launch Sibelius, I get that wretched, blasted Sibelius schmaltz, so I know the output is working, but when I press play, no sound. I went through all the steps on the AVID Help page for Sibelius, and still nothing. Poppycock.

Now, if I chose MIDI instead of Sibelius 7 Sounds I can hear a piano sound way back in the barely-audible range, so I know the MIDI file is playing back, JUST NOT THE SINGLE SIBELIUS CLASSICAL GUITAR SOUND I SPENT $500.00 FOR!

When will I ever learn: Encore is the only notation program that a composer can use.

UPDATE: It's worse than I thought. After spending a couple of hours reinstalling the program from scratch (There are FOUR discs), I did finally get sound... but only a piano sound, far, far away. Guess what? There's no way to permanently change the sound without changing to a specific guitar staff. You can change the sound in the mixer, but it will sound an octave high because... SIBELIUS DOESN'T PLAY 8va/8vb CLEFS! Can you believe that BS? Since all I wanted Sibelius for was formatting and playback, this is a deal breaker and I'm going to ask for my money back. As you regular readers know, I notate complex guitar music on a grand staff with 8vb treble clefs, like so:



Well, in the Sibelius System, in the Evil Trek Universe, where Spock wears a beard... this will always be piano music.

I can't believe AVID sacrificed the sequencer capabilities in what is supposed to be a world class product FOR COMPOSERS. Everybody who uses Finale and Sibelius scoff at Encore because it's so, "primitive." Well, AT LEAST ENCORE PLAYS BACK TRANSPOSING CLEFS WHEN YOU USE THEM.

I hate to curse on MMM, but Sibelius is bullshit, and I'm going to ask for my money back.

Read More

Happy New Year from MMM

Here's to a great 2012 for everybody. Unfortunately, I'm still dealing with my ill mother, and though she made it through the last scare, she is in hospice care now as there is nothing left to do for her. We did have a nice Christmas eve together though, so that was nice, but then she crashed again on Christmas day. Ugh.

Looking forward to happier times.

Read More