Music Technology: From Trends to Standards

By G. David Peters, Director, School of Music Indiana University - IUPUI
Those who initially ventured into the digital world of computers and what is now known as "music technology," predicted great things for those adopting new computer music tools and hardware. Since the mid-1960's, we have tracked "trends" in computer use, profiled the computer user, studied the advantages of computer and digitized music, and warned against the seduction of technology. When do trends in usage become "standards?" How long after a technology becomes commonplace do we abandon the hesitation to use software or hardware? Where do we stand in 2002 in the progression toward a "standard" or set of "standards" or expectations for our music technology? This article suggests that we arrived at this point sometime ago - perhaps five or six years ago.

MUSIC NOTATION - AS A STANDARD

Since music notation systems were created, composers and publishers searched for efficient ways to duplicate and distribute "music," i.e. paper copies of music scores and parts. A long line of mechanical devices were used with some suc- cess in "typesetting" music scores. Costs were high and effi ciency low in setting music for publication. Those who recall using a "music typewriter" can attest to how difficult producing a simple melody could be.

When computers gained the power to manipulate "special" non-alpha-numeric characters, researchers immediately investigated the use of computers to handle the music printing task. Very expensive computer programs were designed as prototypes to establish a trend toward computer notation capabilities. Use of early mainframe computer music programs was laborious and limited. With the application of computer music notation to microcomputers in the late 1970's and early 1980's, a larger group of musicians became "users" and pro- ponents for using computers in music composition. Although difficult to use, people quickly learned to sidestep the music notation software limitations. Programs with such names as Polywriter, Musicwriter, Music Printer, and Professional Composer gave way to others such as Finale, Overture, Encore, and Ballade. The notation software standard has been established with the aid of much faster computers, better computer sound capabilities, and higher resolution monitors. With the desktop/laptop computer world divided between software developers for Windows and Macintosh, music notation has reached a level
accepted by amateur and professional musicians alike. A software standard can be exemplified by a specific program, a set of competitive programs or a certain level of program quality.

TRENDS:

* Expensive notation software for small group of users
* Expanded use of notation software available on microcomputers
* Adoption of notation software by professionals, educators and novices
* Publishers' acceptance of notation software for composition submission
* Broad-based use of music notation files to share music

STANDARDS:
* Sophisticated graphic capabilities with numerous options for selection of fonts, music characters, score detail, part extraction; PLUS reasonable MIDI import and playback capabilities.
* Programs meeting this standard: Finale and Sibelius

MUSIC SEQUENCING - AS A STANDARD:

Just as music notation evolved through numerous genera- tions of software development, music sequencing took a similar path. Sequencing, both hardware and software-based, was fueled by the idea that composers could store and retrieve music data (events) through the use of digital computers. The encoding of music into data took years and pro- duced several prevailing means of storing strings of data, organizing the data, reordering the data, retrieving the data and converting the data into sound. A major boost in music data formats was defined with the MIDI standard in the mid-1980's. Previously, sequencing programs were unique and unable to translate data produced by other programs. Hardware differences also interfered with the "common" use of one particular data format until MIDI was defined through agreement by the music and computer industries.

So what should a music sequencer do? Early software developed for Apple II and Commodore computers, such as Mastertracks, Trax, and Muse, allowed for four to eight "tracks" of data to be input, saved and retrieved. As computers became more powerful, the number of tracks and the size of the file (number of words) expanded to a useable level. A second generation of sequencing software utilized MIDI formats for importing and exporting files. These software programs expanded the track capabilities far beyond a normal music score to 256 tracks. This generation of software includ- ed primative music notation as a visual editing feature.
The most recent software sequencers have added a new dimension of "sound tracks" of wave files to the MIDI tracks of earlier software. This major advance in software development allows for vocal or instrumental recorded sound to be incorporated into the sequencing project.
A sequencer standard was nearly finalized as a MIDI-only system before the most recent wave file capability was developed. Most sequencers now have established a sequencer standard that offers the MIDI data storage and retrieval, the MIDI effects tools, looping of tracks, visual tools including music notation, events lists, and "pianoroll," PLUS the new wave file effects and editing tools.

TRENDS:

* Extremely expensive digital sequencing software limited to unique hardware.
* Expanded use of sequencing software available on microcomputers with very limited capabilities
* Adoption of MIDI data structures in sequencing software design.
* Composers/performers use of sequencing software for composition and live performance.
* MIDI-track software developed for accompaniments to published music.
* Broad-based use of music sequencing files by professional musicians, educators and novices.

STANDARD:

* An acceptable standard for sequencer software must offer MIDI data import/export/storage and retrieval, MIDI effects tools, looping of tracks, PLUS the new wave file effects editing tools. Programs that meet this standard: Cakewalk, Cubase, Logic

INSTRUCTIONAL SOFTWARE - AS A STANDARD

Instructional software development dates from the early 1970's with experimentation using mainframe computer systems found even as early as 1965. The cost of instruction was prohibitive during those days with most instruction rang- ing from $10 to $40 per hour. These early "computer-assisted instruction" software programs were developed on university campuses by a small group of music and engineering faculty. Designs were conceived and tested using very powerful computers with computer terminals that were difficult to use in music production.
As the microcomputer emerged in the late 1970's, several had primitive sound libraries and could generate simple wave "sounds." Apple Corporation assisted developers and pro- grammers in creating music software shortly after introducing the Apple II computer. Apple Music Theory, Elements of Music and Sebastian were among the first published music "lessons" for the microcomputer market. Most of this software was drill- and-practice format and included some judging of users' responses. Special sound cards were developed for the Apple and I BM computers to generate 8, and later 16, voice digital sound in the early 1980's. Two keyboards, the Alpha Syntauri and the SoundChaser, were developed to "play" the Apple II computer. These expensive early "music workstations" were eclipsed by MIDI technology in the mid-1980's.
Several programs are worthy of mention in establishing a standard for instructional software. These programs were developed as microcomputers became more powerful, had better sound capabilities and larger hard drives for multimedia software storage. These programs were characterized by having colorful graphics, screen animations, student record keeping and feedback, digital sound quality acceptable to musicians and student-controlled options.

At peak development, software companies and individual authors had created well over 800 instructional music software programs. Most of these programs were not upgraded as computer systems and capabilties improved. Today's music software market has far fewer companies developing and pro- ducing music software than just a few years ago.

TRENDS:

* Computer-assisted instruction software developed on main- frame
* Computers available to few students
* CAI software developed for microcomputers with very limited sound capabilities
* Enhanced sound and music keyboard input using MIDI keyboards with computers
* Development of music instruction laboratories at schools and colleges
* MIDI-track software developed for "intelligent" accompaniment of student musicians
* High-level graphics, animation and pitch judging added to educational software
* Enhanced use of assessment, feedback and evaluation capabilities of music instruction software.

STANDARDS:

* These programs were characterized by having colorful graphics' screen animations, student recordkeeping and feedback, digital sound quality, verbal help icons, pitch judging and feedback and student-controlled options.
Programs that meet this standard include: Adventures in Musicland, Audio Mirror, Composer Notes, Cloud Nine, Digital Music Mentor, Making Music, Music Ace, Rhythm Factory, Virtual Music Tutor

OTHER STANDARDS:

Music educators are surrounded with standards such as the National Standards for Arts and Music, the Opportunity-to-Learn standards, learning outcomes, instructional guidelines, state curriculum standards, and others too numerous to list. Our purpose in suggesting that music software has attained a certain level of user expectation, hence a standard of quality, is founded upon serious review of hundreds of software products as they have evolved over the last 30 years. Needless to say, we are surrounded by much better music technology today than ever before and the newer software has set stan- dards for software publishers to follow. Publishers continue to improve their products, but need consumer feedback on features that are desired, useful, or others that are not.

Copyright @ 2002, by G. David Peters.