On 18 Oct 2006 at 0:50, shirling & neueweise wrote: > > From: "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >One of my main arguments is that Score's design and UI means that it > >can never be widely used by anyone but the most dedicated engravers > >and computer users. > > i don't find this to be a bad thing. it may be that score **should** > concentrate on a higher end "market" and let finale and sibelius shoot > it out in the lower realm of notation programmes.
It *is* a bad thing, and the evidence of that is that Score does not have a Windows version and that its last update was 7 years ago. [] > >For me, this is all completely off-base, as the composition/engraving > >distinction has no correlation at all with whether or not MIDI entry > >is helpful. > > the assumption is that the composer gives the engraver a finished > piece, and the engraver uses the notation software for notation, at a > highly specialised level. score users are not entirely unconcerned > with MIDI input, and i am not saying there is no need for it. I use Finale primarily for notation, but also use MIDI input (Speedy with MIDI keyboard) to enter my music. All of the music is copied from pre-existing MSS or printed editions, just as it would be for the engraver working for a composer. If I could not use MIDI input, it would take me substantially longer to get music entered. The infelicities of Sibelius's MIDI input are one of the reasons I find it hard to use. I think the supposition that engravers have no need for MIDI input is simply wrong, regardless of whether or not you are correct that this is the line of reasoning that is used by the creators of Score to not provide it. > > > you can't change the vertical order or the > >> horizontal positioning of the articulations in > > > sibelius... > > > >And in Score? > > everything is individually definable/moveable. As a class of objects, or just one by one? That is, could you adjust all or a group of the dynamics in a single staff with one adjustment? Or all of a particular articulation throughout an entire piece? Or does it have to be done page by page? > >Can you transpose something already entered in Score? I thought not, > >but perhaps I'm wrong? > > of course. but i actually don't know exactly what is involved, and > how much of a PITA it would be. Well, when I was shown Score (in the early 90s), once you entered it, you were stuck with it. Well, not really, but altering what was already entered was a huge pain and it was just easier to start the entire page over again. I will grant that this was a long time ago, but there are structural issues that remain (i.e., page-based orientation) that, like Finale's frame-based underpinnings, make it hard to do certain things (in Finale's case, truly independent time signatures), and I can't see how those could be completely worked around. > > > you can't reorder the articulations in the > >> sibelius toolpad, and there are a limited number > >> of articulations (as well as some other > >> elements), so you have to define extra > >> artculations as symbols (which of course react > >> differently than articulations). > > > >And Score? > > everything is individually definable/moveable. That misses the point -- everything in Finale is individually movable, too. But that's not really all that useful. What is really needed is the ability to define default positioning in a sensible way, and then be able to adjust that default positioning after the fact, if need be. > > > sibelius automatically changes the beam height > >> when tremoli are added (but it seems you can't > >> change the tremolo symbol or the font used for > >> it... i'm presently looking into this if anyone > >> has the answer). > > > >And Score? > > everything is individually definable/moveable. as it turns out in > sibelius you can change the font and character for tremoli. Again, this just doesn't answer the question. > >But in Score, is there a way to apply a changed style to multiple > >pages of a score? I don't believe there is -- you'd have to change > >each page individually, no? > > not exactly sure, but i know you can search/replace text, since > everything is code. and some people have written a number of > programmes (or plugins or whatever) for multiple tasks, possibly this > exists, i can't say for sure, but it seems to me it would be possible. Possible does not mean doable. > >Anyone who understands music and has used a computer can open Finale > >and Sibelius and create a printable score. It will look *terrible*, > >probably, but they will be able to get something out of it. > > > >That is simply not true at all with Score -- you won't be able to do > >anything until you've learned a lot of details about the non-obvious > >UI. > > sure, i totally agree with you, but my concern has never been quick > and dirty work, i am interested in an extremely high level of > craftsmanship in engraving, and scores which have musical and graphic > longevity. Well, I'm interested in getting the music in as fast as possible in a way that looks as good as possible with the smallest amount of work. Finale is better at that than Score for *my* purposes, even though Score might produce better default output. And I'm *much* pickier and much more advanced in engraving than the vast majority of people out there needed to make a notation program commercially viable. > > >"musicians" are not those who make the > >> PRIMARY decisions about the development of finale. > > > >And they are for Sibelius? And they are for Score? > > for score for certain. the developer has always remained accessible > to all users. And the reason there's no interference from the marketing department is because there *isn't* any marketing department. You don't seem to think this is a problem, but I really *do* see it as a major problem. Without a large user base, there's no money for development. Score is the perfect historical example of this fact. > >From where I sit, having musicians make the decisions for Score > >hasn't gotten anybody anything, given that it's basically a > >completely moribund program. > > that doesn't have anything to do with the input and feedback of the > musicians or users. It does have something to do with whether or not Score is a viable choice for modern notation needs. It's not viable at all, and I think it would be very unlikely that were there no historical commitment to Score by publishers if Score would be in use by anyone but a small circle of zealots. In other words, if Schirmer and others hadn't settled on using Score c. 1989, then Score wouldn't be a choice they'd consider today. > >What's so secret about the algorithms involved that Finale and > >Sibelius's programmers can't figure it out? I suspect that there's > >two things operating: > > > >1. they have to accommodate substantially more engraving styles that > >Score was designed for, AND > > score isn't designed to accomodate one or another engraving style. it > was designed to accomodate engraving. the needs of any community of > users - jazz charts, new music, classical, pop - can be entered as > easily as any other, as long as the engraver knows the notation > standards the score they are working on is part of. > > >2. they didn't start out from a goal of implementing a single > >engraving style to begin with. > > ibid. Well, perhaps the issue is that there's no music involved in Score -- it's all graphics. The incorporation of music is the reason that Finale is frame-based, and that's a hindrance for notating certain kinds that isn't structured the same way. I can see the advantage in the short run. It seems a disadvantage in the long run. > > > have you noticed how many errors there are in the > >> instrument.txt file? most users wouldn't notice, > >> but the kinds of errors this introduces wouldn't > >> happen (or at least only rarely) with score > >> users' output. > > > >But that's not because Score has a better intrument.txt file (or > >something corresponding to it) -- it's because whatever is in > >Finale's instrument.txt file has to be provided by the Score user > >from his or her own knowledge. > > > >If you don't want to depend on the Finale setup wizards, you can get > >it right, but if you take shortcuts, you may end up with mistakes > >made by someone else. > > > >I don't see this as something better about Score at all, because it's > >a feature that Score doesn't even implement at all. How can you > >compare an implementation with mistakes in it to no implementation at > >all? Surely the added flexibility of the wizard is better to have > >than no shortuct tools at all? > > because i wasn't necessarily comparing implementation, i am > interested in the differences of the users of the different > programmes. no programme in existence But you can't compare failures in Finale in the implementation of features Score lacks. That's completely unfair and unrealistic. Show me substantial mistakes in Finale's implementation of features that Score offers and then you'd have a point. > >The goal is a nicely engraved page, and if the computer can figure it > >out correctly without the human being needing to know how it's done, > >I say GREAT! > > finale and sibelius aren't capable of this, the default settings are > atrocious. noone who takes engraving seriously uses the default > settings of any programme (this is true of any kind of specialization > on computer software). I don't use Finale's default settings, but I've never had much difficulty with setting it the way I want. I wouldn't use Sibelius's default settings, either, and would have a hard time adjusting them to meet my needs. I don't know about Score, since I never used it enough. I wonder how hard it would be to permanently adjust Score's defaults to create notation that matched my idea of how scores should look. I don't know. I have always perceived Score as autocratic in enforcing defaults, while allowing minute numeric adjustment of positioning of any element, with nothing in between. Perhaps I'm wrong on that. > >A Windows version is necessary for Score to have any long-term > >future, and that's been the case for 15 years now. That there isn't a > >Windows version after 15 years suggests to me that there never will > >be, because nobody cares enough about it anymore to justify the > >investment. > > as i've said, there is no lack of interest in it. and the last > update was in 1999. a windows version has been in the works for > around 7 years, informal info says the developer is at least past the > stage of writing the help scripts... although this admittedly does not > say much... "In the works?" What does that mean? Score is moribund. A program without a release in 7 years is simply not a modern program. For one, things in the Windows programming world have changed drastically in that time, so, unless the project was started assuming an NT-based version of Windows, it's likely that anything released tomorrow based on a project designed in 1999 would be behind the times already. You just can't take 7 years to release an update to a program and stay up-to-date. > >What programs have been developed to assist Score? This is an area I > >know nothing about. > > the best-known (i think there are a few others): > http://scoremus.com/products.html > http://home.att.net/~tom.brodhead I reviewed the first of those afterwards, and they all seem like utilities that get you around the deficiencies caused by a page-based paradigm. I didn't see much of anything that really seemed like it offered anything but features that should be built into Score by default, without assistance. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
