WYSIWIG vs WIHIWIG
( What You See Is What You Get versus What You Hear Is What You Get )
In written music, is the score of importance, or only what we hear ?
This question is an aspect of the "feeling vs intelligence" quarrel.
Once again we are confronted to the usual opposition :
A "normal" person from a "broad" audience will naturally answer that only the result is important - thus they emphasize on what we hear.
( the extreme point of view being given here by the " modern moralist " )A composer from the academic avant garde (especially the european one) will answer that complexity and/or concept is more important - thus they emphasize on what we see - or at least what they see, even if only in their mind.
( the extreme point of view being given here by the " traditional moralist ")
A very simple remark could lead us to the beginning of an answer : since as human beings, we're more visual than auditive, we prefer to rely on what we see.
The academic moralist / composer, though, sees structures in his head. The score, the software embodiment during the making, is a reflection of what he sees in his head. Michel Chion refers to this phenomenon as visuaudition.
To be fully appreciated, music written by an academician has to be read as well.
This is especially obvious if you look at contemporary scores.
This is a typically academic answer to the translation issue.
( translation from what's in the mind to the actual result - academic composers see diagrams in their head, so they naturally end up with a diagram output )