# How's Dorico Now?



## desert

It's been awhile. Are we still their QA testers, or is the product actually usable without so many missing core features?


----------



## resound

I believe there has only been one update so it still has a long way to go.


----------



## desert

resound said:


> I believe there has only been one update so it still has a long way to go.



Thanks for the reply. Thankfully I didn't fall for the marketing hype but would love to eventually use the product once it's completed.


----------



## InLight-Tone

Especially if they would integrate it into Cubase given that Studio One has dropped the ball with Notion...


----------



## Guillermo Navarrete

Hello, 



resound said:


> I believe there has only been one update so it still has a long way to go.



There have been two updates that also aded many features and improved functionality but the next update will add the awaited chord symbols, Dorico 1.1 should be deliver any time soon. 

Best regards,
GN


----------



## Tatu

Is @Christof still using it? I believe he had some issues with it at launch.


----------



## Vik

Personally I've taken a break from Dorico, waiting for some functions/changes that are essential for me (a workflow which is a lot more self-explanatory etc). I even consider buying Sibelius for some of it's features. Nevertheless, Dorico is probably the notation program which is developed most actively at the moment.

Here are some of the things I hope to see soon:
Real time MIDI recording
Ability to move notes in pitch and time using either mouse or key commands
Key commands for everything (flip slurs, flip ties, invert chord etc)
Support for piano fingerings
Ability to hear all notes in a piano chord when moving one of them with mouse or key command.
Key command to go to next/previous should optionally play all notes in a chord.
Explode polyphony
Ability to move or copy note to another voice.
Idea hub
Ability to assign any key combination to any of the existing commands.
Diatonic transpose of selected notes with mouse or key command

Doricos output looks great, but there are simply too many things that makes me stop and think "how do I......?". Something as simple as opening a Kontakt plugin needs 'learning' in Dorico, and there are several ways to solve this. Contextual menus everywhere would help a lot.


----------



## Vik

...and even something as simple as defining a time signature has a 'learning process'. Most music apps default to showing a time signature (4/4), and if you want to change it, you either simply click on it check if there's a contextual menu there. Not so with Dorico. 
Last time I opened Dorico it was some weeks since I tried it before that, and not only is the process of opening Kontakt and selecting a library a non-obvious process, but even after one has figured it out, one needs to find a way to simply play a note on my MIDI keyboard and hear the selected Kontakt sound for that track when I play. I really appreciate what Steinberg has done for virtual instrument users in Cubase (even Dorico has expression maps) and with notation in Dorico, but some really basic functions are missing in Dorico still - even after the upcoming June update.


----------



## Christof

Tatu said:


> Is @Christof still using it? I believe he had some issues with it at launch.


Version 1.0 was like a buggy beta in my opinion, after the updates it became more and more adult.
I'll wait for the next update and then I will spend some time learning how to use it professionally.


----------



## Saxer

I planned to 'grow' with Dorico and learn it function by function that will be added with updates. But starting simple for me would be writing lead sheets and that's still not possible (chord symbols missing). So I'm really looking forward to the next update!


----------



## C-Wave

Vik said:


> Personally I've taken a break from Dorico, waiting for some functions/changes that are essential for me (a workflow which is a lot more self-explanatory etc). I even consider buying Sibelius for some of it's features. Nevertheless, Dorico is probably the notation program which is developed most actively at the moment.
> 
> Here are some of the things I hope to see soon:
> Real time MIDI recording
> Ability to move notes in pitch and time using either mouse or key commands
> Key commands for everything (flip slurs, flip ties, invert chord etc)
> Support for piano fingerings
> Ability to hear all notes in a piano chord when moving one of them with mouse or key command.
> Key command to go to next/previous should optionally play all notes in a chord.
> Explode polyphony
> Ability to move or copy note to another voice.
> Idea hub
> Ability to assign any key combination to any of the existing key commands.
> Diatonic transpose of selected notes with mouse or key command
> 
> Doricos output looks great, but there are simply too many things that makes me stop and think "how do I......?". Something as simple as opening a Kontakt plugin needs 'learning' in Dorico, and there are several ways to solve this. Contextual menus everywhere would help a lot.


The first 3 feature requests in your list are absolute deal breakers for me.. same for Kontakt issues. Q: what's in the June update? Thanks!


----------



## Vik

C-Wave said:


> The first 3 feature requests in your list are absolute deal breakers for me.. same for Kontakt issues. Q: what's in the June update? Thanks!



From http://www.scoringnotes.com/news/will-included-next-dorico-update/




Chord symbols
Repeat endings
Editable note spacing
Piano pedaling
Improvements to enharmonic spelling during input
Filters
Voice editing operations
Editing in *Write* mode
Flow management features (duplicate flow, import/export flows, etc.)
Score following in *Write* mode during playback
Support for MIDI devices for playback
Basic navigation features (go to bar, previous/next flow)
Dynamic grouping/ungrouping
Trigger commands from your MIDI keyboard
MusicXML import options
Easier handling of the VST2 whitelist
Slur improvements
Dozens of bug fixes


----------



## resound

Guillermo Navarrete said:


> Hello,
> 
> 
> 
> There have been two updates that also aded many features and improved functionality but the next update will add the awaited chord symbols, Dorico 1.1 should be deliver any time soon.
> 
> Best regards,
> GN


That's good to hear. Do emails go out with new updates? I have never received an email so I probably missed an update.


----------



## desert

Well, from the patch listing it looks like they are actively adding in core features, which is awesome!

I'll wait till Dorico 1.5


----------



## Prockamanisc

I've tried a few times to switch from Sibelius, but I'm SO good at Sibelius and SO bad at Dorico that it's been difficult to switch. Half of my composing time is spent looking up "how do I do this thing that I do all the time in Sibelius?", and half of the results are a conceptually new way of doing it, which derails my workflow. I'm still committed to switching to it, but it hasn't been easy.


----------



## Vik

There are simply too many things to remember in Dorico in order to get stuff done. I'm sure they think that we only need to memorize some more key commands, but there are a few problems involved with that - the first being that since Dorico in many ways is an unfinished product, we - or at least I - won't really get to using it as our go to music app for a while, so by the time there's a new version out, there are so many weeks since I tried it last time that I don't remember all the commands I learned a about last time I checked out Dorico. Also, since so many of us use so many apps, libraries and even DAWs, there's a limit to how much we can memorize for apps we don't yet use regularly. 
_The remedy to this would of course be to allow essential stuff to be doable also with a mouse or contextual menus._ But that doesn't at all seem to be a priority with the Dorico team. 

It's the same team which developed Sibelius. And even after MANY years of development, it wasn't possible to simply grab a note with the mouse and move it to a new location. I may be wrong about this (am I), but I don't think that feature was implemented until after Avid fired the Sibelius team (the team which now develops Dorico. 

So I'm starting to get worried about how many months/years we have to wait until things I consider 100% essential are being implemented.


----------



## Saxer

Vik said:


> ...since so many of us use so many apps, libraries and even DAWs, there's a limit to how much we can memorize for apps we don't yet use regularly.
> _The remedy to this would of course be to allow essential stuff to be doable also with a mouse or contextual menus._ But that doesn't at all seem to be a priority with the Dorico team.


That's a problem I have too... but I think it's a problem of every program. The more complex the harder to start. They have good tutorial videos with detailed information. Good to watch and start with the app. After a few weeks I can't remember everything but don't want to watch every 'how & why' explanation again. That's where I get impatient... watching again 'how to save' and 'midi settings'. Aargh... I only want to set a simple "4/4"!

But as a 'never get used to Sibelius' guy I find Doricos way of workflow development much more natural and better to memorize. It's a bit like Apples new Final Cut: a new workflow of a new created app is always big a step back for pros. They can't use their trained habits and miss a lot of the deep functionality of their mature apps. But as the new app grows the new workflow suddenly shines for those users who invested time.


----------



## Vik

Saxer said:


> The more complex the harder to start. They have good tutorial videos with detailed information. Good to watch and start with the app. After a few weeks I can't remember everything but don't want to watch every 'how & why' explanation again. That's where I get impatient... watching again 'how to save' and 'midi settings'. Aargh... I only want to set a simple "4/4"!


...and even if one doesn't want 4/4, it would be better if there was one obvious place to click to enter the desired time signature. 

Maybe some functions have to be complex in a feature rich program. But in terms of many of the workflow bumps I've come across, it's easy to imagine simpler solutions.


----------



## Elephant

+1 in that it is not ready for prime time yet. Good work in progress. One additional point - the user interface preferences colour schemes are either black on grey, or grey on black. This might be all the fashion these days in interface design, but for me it is just drab, boring, and uninspiring. Some people like nice bright colours. TAKE NOTE PLEASE STEINBERG !!! I look forward to seeing 1.1 !!


----------



## peter5992

Prockamanisc said:


> I've tried a few times to switch from Sibelius, but I'm SO good at Sibelius and SO bad at Dorico that it's been difficult to switch. Half of my composing time is spent looking up "how do I do this thing that I do all the time in Sibelius?", and half of the results are a conceptually new way of doing it, which derails my workflow. I'm still committed to switching to it, but it hasn't been easy.



LOL ... me too. I think Dorico is the future for a variety of reasons (the team behind it, the ability to build it up from scratch without code that goes back decades and that can cause all kinds of bugs when introducing new features, the playback engine and the ability to fiddle with midi notes), but I'll probably keep using Sibelius for many more years to come. Also the team lead by Daniel Spreadbury is careful to slowly roll out features, and carefully test everything to make sure it works.

@Elephant : personally I like the interface - the cleaner and simpler, the better.

By the way, there are several people that have successfully switched from e.g. Sibelius to Dorico, and are able to crank out scores and parts that look great, and with no drama (eg Claude Lapalme, the resident director of the Red Deer Symphony in Canada).


----------



## JJP

I and every colleague I work with are still waiting. There are too many missing features to make it useful for a professional copyist or orchestrator.

It has tons of potential but is not ready yet.


----------



## FriFlo

I actually bought the crossgrade, but as soon as I got the time to install and try out, I decided to wait until the next major upgrade. That way, there will probably a grace period to get the next upgrade for free and after reading what is missing from this program currently, I get the feeling it is a little bit to expensive to me to just try it out, participate in a beta program and finally decide it was to early to jump ... probably v 1.5 (or 2.0 or whatever they will call the next major upgrade) will still not be quite there yet! I hope it will at least support video!


----------



## desert

FriFlo said:


> I actually bought the crossgrade, but as soon as I got the time to install and try out, I decided to wait until the next major upgrade. That way, there will probably a grace period to get the next upgrade for free and after reading what is missing from this program currently, I get the feeling it is a little bit to expensive to me to just try it out, participate in a beta program and finally decide it was to early to jump ... probably v 1.5 (or 2.0 or whatever they will call the next major upgrade) will still not be quite there yet! I hope it will at least support video!


Seems like 1.5 or 2 will hopefully make it on par with the others. I hope! (Crossgrade from Sibelius better not run out by then)


----------



## Elephant

peter5992 said:


> @Elephant : personally I like the interface - the cleaner and simpler, the better.



@peter5992 These things really are highly personal. I am not suggesting that Steinberg deprecate the current UI colours, just make sure that other options are available for people who for whatever reason, prefer different colour schemes. The current fad for black and grey in music software UI design is one of the general criticisms I have of the industry. In my case, I will not give such UIs a second thought. It's up to users to be vocal enough with the suppliers to insist on what they want, when it becomes necessary. Authentic feedback to suppliers is all grist for the mill. 

@Guillermo Navarrete - please could you advise whether there will be more colour schemes implemented in Dorico as options in the preferences pane, and if so in which release it can be expected. If none will be, it is likely I will continue with Sibelius and not move over.

Thanks !
E


----------



## Elephant

No news from Steinberg
Decision made - if I want to upgrade it will be to Sib 8. Will not hold my breath for Dorico. If it suddenly appears and does what I need, fine.


----------



## Virtual Virgin

Dorico needs some serious augmentation of functions in order to be worthwhile IMHO.
No MIDI recording? MIDI recording has been around for almost 40 years now, they couldn't toss some basic code in the mix for this? Are you joking? I wouldn't be surprised if they lost 90% of their potential customers with that oversight.

I am not paying $700 to be a beta tester for a program which has *much* less functionality than it's competitors.


----------



## Paul T McGraw

Virtual Virgin said:


> Dorico needs some serious augmentation of functions in order to be worthwhile IMHO.
> No MIDI recording? MIDI recording has been for almost 40 years now, they couldn't toss some basic code in the mix for this? Are you joking? I wouldn't be surprised if they lost 90% of their potential customers over that oversight.
> 
> I am not paying $700 to be a beta tester for a program which has *much* less functionality than it's competitors.



I had high hopes for Dorico. I am 64, and I no longer expect it to become a viable alternative within my lifetime. I am sad to say that if I was CEO of Steinberg I would pull the plug on Dorico and stop throwing more money down that particular pit. Perhaps it now makes some sense why Avid fired the old Sibelius team and hired new people. Perhaps the old Sibelius team just wasn't getting the job done at Avid anymore either. Meanwhile, Sibelius continues to come out with a steady stream of minor improvements, and an occasional major improvement. And with NotePerformer it has excellent playback for a notation program. The truth for me is that despite a few flaws, Sibelius gets the job done just fine.


----------



## stigc56

Well I think you gonna live to see Dorico in a mature and excellent version  
I still keep hanging on to Sibelius, but I must say that I don't understand that a company like Avid can live with the poor standard this app has become. Bugs are not getting corrected, and the whole convoluted way Sibelius is working is in my opinion a result of a very old core with a lot of badly implemented solutions. Let me give one example: Everybody were happy to see the implementation of Housestyles, in one click you could change the whole look of a score or part, you could even have housestyles for different parts! So you go along and creates your own Housestyle - and using export - Housestyles you are presented with - not a fileselector - but a box where you can give it a name. When you import the Housestyle you have a selection window, and you can select the Housestyle you just created. Now you want to change a little tiny thing about this Housestyle, ex. the text size of the tittle, so you change the size and hit Appearance/Housestyle/Export now you have to remember the style you created. Was it "Piano+vc" or was it "Piano + vocal", did you use the title of the Show (West Side Story - WSS Piano + vocal)? So you have to select the Import Housestyle to remind you about the name, and don't forget to NOT hit the ok button. And if you get it right Sibelius will inform you that you are about to overwrite a file. 
Why not use the filesystem on the computer, much faster, much easier for everybody?


----------



## Paul T McGraw

stigc56 said:


> Well I think you gonna live to see Dorico in a mature and excellent version
> I still keep hanging on to Sibelius, but I must say that I don't understand that a company like Avid can live with the poor standard this app has become. Bugs are not getting corrected, and the whole convoluted way Sibelius is working is in my opinion a result of a very old core with a lot of badly implemented solutions. Let me give one example: Everybody were happy to see the implementation of Housestyles, in one click you could change the whole look of a score or part, you could even have housestyles for different parts! So you go along and creates your own Housestyle - and using export - Housestyles you are presented with - not a fileselector - but a box where you can give it a name. When you import the Housestyle you have a selection window, and you can select the Housestyle you just created. Now you want to change a little tiny thing about this Housestyle, ex. the text size of the tittle, so you change the size and hit Appearance/Housestyle/Export now you have to remember the style you created. Was it "Piano+vc" or was it "Piano + vocal", did you use the title of the Show (West Side Story - WSS Piano + vocal)? So you have to select the Import Housestyle to remind you about the name, and don't forget to NOT hit the ok button. And if you get it right Sibelius will inform you that you are about to overwrite a file.
> Why not use the filesystem on the computer, much faster, much easier for everybody?



For the sake of the Steinberg folks, I hope you are correct about Dorico one day becoming a viable product. While I agree that Sibelius is not perfect, I think minor annoyances like the one you mentioned are, well, minor.


----------



## Saxer

For a young product like Dorico it has come to a good level. The only mistake they did - in my opinion - is the early publishing date. If they would have called it "Dorico first" or "Dorico tryout" or something like that nobody would have expected a mature full featured app. Big feature gaps like missing midi recording or drum/rhythm notation make it still unuseable for a lot of users.
But the existing features are really on a pro level. Look, speed, stability... compare that to the first version of Sibelius, Notion, Finale! Give them two more years. 66 is a good age to get a good notation program


----------



## JJP

Saxer said:


> For a young product like Dorico it has come to a good level. The only mistake they did - in my opinion - is the early publishing date.



Saxer nailed it. It has great potential. The features that are there are solid. It is simply not ready for professional use at this point and should have been released as a beta.


----------



## Paul T McGraw

JJP said:


> Saxer nailed it. It has great potential. The features that are there are solid. It is simply not ready for professional use at this point and should have been released as a beta.



Despite my love for music, I spent 30 years in business, most as a commercial banker. I expect Yamaha just could not continue to pour millions into Dorico year after year with no revenue. It would not be fair to their other employees, customers and investors. The Japanese think more long term than westerners, but even they have limits. This way the market decides if the product has a future, and if it does not, it will have been the free market rejecting the product, not the Yamaha management team.


----------



## Saxer

Creating a complex program from scratch is work for several years. Thats a task you can't think in quarterly figures.


----------



## Paul T McGraw

Saxer said:


> Creating a complex program from scratch is work several for years. Thats a task you can't think in quarterly figures.



I hope so. I hope Yamaha and Steinberg will stick it out and creates a great next generation notation program.


----------



## Saxer

https://www.steinberg.net/en/newsandevents/news/newsdetail/article/dorico-update-1110-now-available-4407.html

Still no drum note symbols... but more chord options, endings and a few other things.


----------



## mac88104

Vik said:


> Personally I've taken a break from Dorico, waiting for some functions/changes that are essential for me (a workflow which is a lot more self-explanatory etc). I even consider buying Sibelius for some of it's features. Nevertheless, Dorico is probably the notation program which is developed most actively at the moment.
> 
> Here are some of the things I hope to see soon:
> Real time MIDI recording
> Ability to move notes in pitch and time using either mouse or key commands
> Key commands for everything (flip slurs, flip ties, invert chord etc)
> Support for piano fingerings
> Ability to hear all notes in a piano chord when moving one of them with mouse or key command.
> Key command to go to next/previous should optionally play all notes in a chord.
> Explode polyphony
> Ability to move or copy note to another voice.
> Idea hub
> Ability to assign any key combination to any of the existing commands.
> Diatonic transpose of selected notes with mouse or key command
> 
> Doricos output looks great, but there are simply too many things that makes me stop and think "how do I......?". Something as simple as opening a Kontakt plugin needs 'learning' in Dorico, and there are several ways to solve this. Contextual menus everywhere would help a lot.




"Ability to move notes in pitch and time using either mouse or key commands" : very important to me, and also the ability to change note duration dragging a virtual bar attached to the note. I saw this functionality on Logic but no notation editor has something as good as Logic has IMO. I like my Cubase Pro but I really would like to work on a good notation editor also.


----------



## Vik

mac88104 said:


> "Ability to move notes in pitch and time using either mouse or key commands


They mentioned 2-3 years ago that they will implement it. The important question is of course: When? Does anyone here know if has been mentioned along with the other news about the new version coming later this year?


----------



## jms4th

desert said:


> It's been awhile. Are we still their QA testers, or is the product actually usable without so many missing core features?



I downloaded it and gave it a go. Hated it. Frankly, I have no idea why they released it before it was ready. I would like to have a viable alternative to Sibelius because Avid is not my favorite company, but Dorico isn't it, at least not yet.


----------



## altruistica

The thing about Dorico is that when something is implemented, it is implemented in a full way. Take drum notation for example....or chords....they are the most comprehensive implementation I have seen in any scoring program to date.
The real strength about Dorico though is in its ability to provide bespoke arrangements with a few keystrokes. This will I think become more apparent in the next two years at most, when things like 'live input' and 'scoring to picture' become available. Once the program can do 95% of what other programs can already do, it will take off as the de facto scoring package because of what it alone can do.


----------



## driscollmusick

I bought Dorico when it first came out, but the learning curve seemed way too steep and the lack of mouse input was a deal-breaker for me. However, I went back to it a few weeks ago, dug in, and was quite impressed with many of the improvements. I will continue to use Finale for composing and MIDI playback for now, but Dorico has become my clear software of choice for _engraving _projects. I want to spend hours composing, not hours adjusting dynamic placement and reshaping slurs. Dorico does all those details nearly perfectly by default. This is something Finale should have been working on years ago and probably will never be able to match. Moreover, my recent experience with Dorico revealed the as-yet unrealized potential of the software (though it is admittedly still backward in a couple areas). I am confident Dorico will eventually be able to let you select easily that you want two oboe players, one of whom will double on English Horn, and will layout the full score to reflecting all the instrument switches (dividing into two staves as necessary) with the 2nd player's part simultaneously also reflecting all switches and transpositions on a single staff. When this comes about, it will be a touchstone in the history of notation software.


----------



## driscollmusick

Vik said:


> ...and even if one doesn't want 4/4, it would be better if there was one obvious place to click to enter the desired time signature.
> 
> Maybe some functions have to be complex in a feature rich program. But in terms of many of the workflow bumps I've come across, it's easy to imagine simpler solutions.



I understand the frustration, but I am working on a piece that opens with a free flute solo (no time signature). In Dorico I can just write the notes and add a new measure & time signature once the music needs one. In Finale, I'd have to figure out what the *real* time signature is for the solo flute (47/4, say), enter that time signaure, and then hide it. It is a different mindset, for sure.


----------



## Vik

That’s good, but if Dorico would default to 4/4 - and one could remove that 4/4 with one click, we would have the best of both worlds.


----------



## Saxer

Vik said:


> That’s good, but if Dorico would default to 4/4 - and one could remove that 4/4 with one click, we would have the best of both worlds.


Actually the 4/4 (or any other) setting is in the side bar two clicks away. Just make an empty song template with a 4/4 bar setting and you're done. It's a simple beginners obstacle that happens in every other new app too and if you use it regularly it's forgotten after two days.

What I really miss is the option to record realtime playing. Hope they get there soon!


----------



## Vik

I still think that the most obvious solution is the best one. Plus, don’t forget that many Dorico users (like me) don’t use D. regularly, due to too many missing essential functions. This means that every time I open up Dorico, I need to search for functions that are easy to find in other apps.


----------



## Vik

Saxer said:


> What I really miss is the option to record realtime playing. Hope they get there soon!


+1000.
This, the ability to move notes with the mouse, proper tempo map, proper control of CC automation, too many missing key commands and way too few contextual menu options where I expect to see them are among the things I miss the most (and which is why I don’t use Dorico much).

I think a main 'problem' with Dorico is that Steinberg wants us to buy two apps, not one. So they won't make Dorico into a complete application, they'll develop it in a way that we still need to use a DAW in addition to Dorico. Apple can sell Logic for a ridiculously low price since it generates Mac sales (at least for now, until Logic will run on iOs devices, but then it will still need an Apple device) - and because Apple is loaded with cash. Steinberg can't do that. So they somehow need Dorico to miss essential functions (functions that would be great to have in an app that's used to compose/create music with sample libraries).

So in a way they area beating, no: feeding a dead horse, namely that idea that one should use two apps to compose/arrange and print great sounding music/mockups etc. Also, it is made by the Sibelius team, which generally is great, but also means that it is made by the same team which for MANY years never implemented some essential things that users asked for for years, like the ability to move a note (time or pitch or both) using a mouse. I may be wrong about this, but I don't think Sibelius got that function until after they fired the team that now works in Dorico. So maybe would should stop assuming that some of the more DAW like functions we miss in Dorico (not that being able to press record and enter MIDI notes in real time is "DAW like"; it should be possible in any music app out there) will be implemented soon.

This may change when Steinberg/Yamaha discovers that the number of people who work full time with engraving is very small compared with all those who need a really good score app but which aren't mainly engravers, including many like me who unfortunately still need to compose and make mockups in one app and use another for good looking notation (and with a great set of of engraving oriented features). 

Some of the implementations I've seen in Dorico (see image) are implemented in such a way that it feels like looking at either a bug or an early beta version of something that will be released next year. We shouldn't have to look at a 1998-ish user interface in 2018 - in an app that wants to become the industry standard for notation. 

The lack or cumbersomeness of many of the basic functions is too bad, because there's so much good stuff in Dorico too.


----------



## Saxer

Vik said:


> Plus, don’t forget that many Dorico users (like me) don’t use D. regularly, due to too many missing essential functions. This means that every time I open up Dorico, I need to search for functions that are easy to find in other apps.


I use Sibelius very rarely (I do most notation in Logic). I feel the same way in Sibelius like you in Dorico. Nothing is easy to find in Sibelius if you don't have experience. For me as a beginner Dorico is easier. i.e. I can't move notes in Sibelius with the mouse to the left or right (only up and down) like in Logic. In Dorico there's a at least a key command for that. I think all that are mainly habits. Different apps = different workflow.


----------



## Vik

Well, I never bought Sibelius for those reasons. I bought Finale at some point, but didn't like it much. So I have also been relying in Logic - with all it's notation/composing shortcomings, and bought Dorico shortly after it was released, knowing that it would take some time before it would be ready for the kind of work I'd like to do with it. Now I'm not even sure this will happen, but there may not be any other notation apps out there which are better. Ironically, I consider buying Sibelius now, due to some great functions Sibelius has which not only both Logic and Dorico is missing, but which I'm starting to think that Dorico or Logic never will get. 

But having seen what Apple has done with Logic 10.4, and that Dorico is so engraving oriented that it may take years before the kind of functions I miss in Dorico will be implemented, I'm slightly more optimistic about Logic's development than Dorico's at the moment. They are both being developed by rather stubborn product designers, but I am getting the feeling that the D-team is even more stubborn that the L-team.


----------



## driscollmusick

Vik said:


> Well, I never bought Sibelius for those reasons. I bought Finale at some point, but didn't like it much. So I have also been relying in Logic - with all it's notation/composing shortcomings, and bought Dorico shortly after it was released, knowing that it would take some time before it would be ready for the kind of work I'd like to do with it. Now I'm not even sure this will happen, but there may not be any other notation apps out there which are better. Ironically, I consider buying Sibelius now, due to some great functions Sibelius has which not only both Logic and Dorico is missing, but which I'm starting to think that Dorico or Logic never will get.
> 
> But having seen what Apple has done with Logic 10.4, and that Dorico is so engraving oriented that it may take years before the kind of functions I miss in Dorico will be implemented, I'm slightly more optimistic about Logic's development than Dorico's at the moment. They are both being developed by rather stubborn product designers, but I am getting the feeling that the D-team is even more stubborn that the L-team.



Well, if you don't like Finale or Sibelius, I don't find it surprising that you don't like Dorico. They are ALL primarily notation programs, Dorico especially so.


----------



## driscollmusick

Vik said:


> I still think that the most obvious solution is the best one. Plus, don’t forget that many Dorico users (like me) don’t use D. regularly, due to too many missing essential functions. This means that every time I open up Dorico, I need to search for functions that are easy to find in other apps.



I think "obvious" is a subjective statement and is just based on the fact that you are used to having programs default to 4/4. Also, "it's a difficult program to learn" because "I haven't spend the time to learn it" is a circular argument.


Vik said:


> +1000.
> This, the ability to move notes with the mouse, proper tempo map, proper control of CC automation, too many missing key commands and way too few contextual menu options where I expect to see them are among the things I miss the most (and which is why I don’t use Dorico much).
> 
> I think a main 'problem' with Dorico is that Steinberg wants us to buy two apps, not one. So they won't make Dorico into a complete application, they'll develop it in a way that we still need to use a DAW in addition to Dorico. Apple can sell Logic for a ridiculously low price since it generates Mac sales (at least for now, until Logic will run on iOs devices, but then it will still need an Apple device) - and because Apple is loaded with cash. Steinberg can't do that. So they somehow need Dorico to miss essential functions (functions that would be great to have in an app that's used to compose/create music with sample libraries).
> 
> So in a way they area beating, no: feeding a dead horse, namely that idea that one should use two apps to compose/arrange and print great sounding music/mockups etc. Also, it is made by the Sibelius team, which generally is great, but also means that it is made by the same team which for MANY years never implemented some essential things that users asked for for years, like the ability to move a note (time or pitch or both) using a mouse. I may be wrong about this, but I don't think Sibelius got that function until after they fired the team that now works in Dorico. So maybe would should stop assuming that some of the more DAW like functions we miss in Dorico (not that being able to press record and enter MIDI notes in real time is "DAW like"; it should be possible in any music app out there) will be implemented soon.
> 
> This may change when Steinberg/Yamaha discovers that the number of people who work full time with engraving is very small compared with all those who need a really good score app but which aren't mainly engravers, including many like me who unfortunately still need to compose and make mockups in one app and use another for good looking notation (and with a great set of of engraving oriented features).
> 
> Some of the implementations I've seen in Dorico (see image) are implemented in such a way that it feels like looking at either a bug or an early beta version of something that will be released next year. We shouldn't have to look at a 1998-ish user interface in 2018 - in an app that wants to become the industry standard for notation.
> 
> The lack or cumbersomeness of many of the basic functions is too bad, because there's so much good stuff in Dorico too.



I'm not sure what you mean about not being able to move notes with a mouse. You can't drag notes like you do in Finale, but if you double-click on a note and then click somewhere else above or below it, it will move the note to where you clicked. That's all done with a mouse. Again, different approach. Personally, I never use a mouse to change notes (just to enter them--I use the arrow keys to change them), so the workflow to you that seems "obvious" is subjective.


----------



## Vik

driscollmusick said:


> think "obvious" is a subjective statement and is just based on the fact that you are used to having programs default to 4/4. Also, "it's a difficult program to learn" because "I haven't spend the time to learn it" is a circular argument.


I don't need it to default to 4/4, I have actually worked a lot with uncommon meters. I just don't like the idea that one needs to spend energy/time on finding out how to insert and define a time signature. If it had been saying eg 4/4 at the beginning of a piece, one could easily change it to something else by double-clicking on the existing time signature, or remove it if desired. I have tried, used and reviewed a lot of music software since around 1990, so it's not that I'm expecting any new software I used to be similar to what I use the most. What I say is that pretty much anything should be doable with one click or a double-click - whenever possible. If not, the most common function we need in any given scenario should, if possible, be available through contextual menus. 

In almost all (music and other) software I use, it's possible to grab something with a mouse and move it. Steinberg has chosen, so far, not to allow this in Dorico - which IMO Is a bad idea - not because I'm used to it, but because it's a common way to move things in almost all software. That's also how real life works: if you see something you want to move, you grab and move it. 

I also prefer top rely on key commands when I use software, but unfortunately, Dorico is missing a number of key commands as well. In spite of all that, I like the software (more than Final and Sibelius) and impressed by many of it's functions. It's just not ready yet - for some of us.


----------



## John Barron

You can click and drag items around in Engrave mode. In Write mode Dorico aims to put things in the right place in the first place.

Dorico now has controller lanes (in play mode), and video support (with the Cubase / Nuendo video engine).

We do aim to add live midi recording, it's not the technical bits that are the main issue (Dorico already has the Cubase audio engine), but making sure the notation is useable. Also, many users tell us that they don't use it in their current software. You can also use a DAW like Cubase and then export / drag the region into Dorico (imported as MIDI), or export / import musicxml.


----------



## Vik

John Barron said:


> many users tell us that they don't use it in their current software.


I think piano players in general find it easier to enter music by playing, with the benefits that comes with that (like "human" velocity on each and every note). I also know that for certain/many types of work, step input is a better solution. But people work in different ways. Personally I need real time entering so often and see so many benefits from that, that I pretty much have put Dorico on hold - unfortunately. But I'm not an engraver.


----------



## John Barron

Fair enough - you probably have a DAW you can use already, and maybe you can then drag the region into Dorico for now? e.g. in this video 

As I said, we aim to add it.


----------



## Vik

John Barron said:


> Fair enough - you probably have a DAW you can use already, and maybe you can then drag the region into Dorico for now? e.g


Well, my main DAW was Logic, but I bought Cubase around the time I bought Dorico since Cubase certainly was better than Logic in some aras that had to do with composing, articulation control, automation of CC parameters etc. I really don't like the thought if need two apps at all. And while Cubase certainly is better than Logic in many areas, it's also weaker in many others, so I'll stick will Logic at least until Cubase 10 or until Dorico and Cubase are fully integrated.

And frankly, since the team - after having worked on Dorico for what... 5-6 years? - only still "aim" to add real time MIDI recording, I'm not optimistic about getting it within reasonable time at all. Not to be able to press record and record MIDI in a highly professional MIDI app is to me just plain disappointing.


----------



## John Barron

Ok. Understood. It's important to you. Don't buy Dorico until it's been implemented then. Yes we've been working on Dorico for a few years, but a lot of that will have been putting the structures in place that we can now build on - e.g. now adding controller lanes.
If publish-quality notation is important, use a notation program. If not then stick with a DAW at least for now.


----------



## Vik

I bought Dorico shortly after its as released. I bought my first MIDI instrument when MIDI was introduced to the public in 82/83, with the possibility of allow working in real time between two musical instruments, or a musical instrument and a computer. That's 36 years ago!
I can't stick with a DAW, because there's no DAW which have a well enough developed score editor. So I need a score editor in addition to my DAW. But Dorico has been designed, from the ground up, for users who work regularly in Dorico, meaning that the workflow may be OK for those who has it as a main app or at least use it regularly. Whenever I have tried to go back to Dorico to work with stuff made on Logic, I realise that there are so many potential workflow improvements - changes that would have been extremely useful for users like me - which aren't implemented. More contextual menus, more key commands, mouseover help everywhere and so on. So no - I can't use Dorico and a main app, and its not designed for occasional users either. Both publishing quality notation and good DAW features are important to me (and most of my colleagues). With all dure respect for Dorico still being developed in many areas, I think the idea/decision to plan that people should use two apps instead of one is a massive mistake.
Of course it's my own fault to have bought Dorico that early. I guess I didn't even imagine, soon 40 years after MIDI was introduced, that you still only "aim" to introduce real time MIDI recording.


----------



## John Barron

I suggest that any feature ideas for workflow improvements are made on our official forum https://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewforum.php?f=246 as we are listing / reading all the comments and taking things on-board. 
There is already quite a lot of mouseover help, lots of key commands (and you can assign your own, or MIDI-device buttons as shortcuts) etc.
We aren't aiming to replace Cubase (e.g. no audio editing etc), simply to move the line between notation and a DAW so that you can achieve more for e.g. mockups in Dorico without having to need to go to Cubase. Publishing quality is of prime importance to us too. I'm not saying that it's a decision to plan that people should use two apps - although it will always depend on the project they are working on.
That said, where it's helpful to use another program for things that Dorico doesn't yet do, I thought it helpful to point it out.


----------



## Vik

John Barron said:


> I suggest that any feature ideas for workflow improvements are made on our official forum https://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewforum.php?f=246 as we are listing / reading all the comments and taking things on-board.


Done that for a while, but still a good ide to post that link here. Maybe more Dorico and non-Dorico users will chime in then.


----------



## John Barron

Absolutely - and be assured that it's been read and acknowledged.


----------



## Saxer

I'm a hardcore Logic user for decades and record most things in realtime (plus editing). But last week I recorded a piano sketch in Logic, imported it as MusicXML into Dorico and arranged/composed from there. Noteperformer 3 is a mega help and working with copy/paste from the sketch while adding additional notes by computer & keyboard was fast work. It's very flexible to work without a template and controller editing. Noteperformer does the job in the background. Especially rhythmic editing and copy/paste to different instruments doesn't need extra work with CCs. It really surprised myself. It's a very effective way of composing. I didn't even miss the realtime recording any more.


----------



## curtisschweitzer

While I understand why some missing features-- particularly the noted realtime recording input-- are frustrating for some users, I have to say that my experience with Dorico (both 1 & 2) has thus far been amazingly positive. The fanatical attempt to get rid of so much of the busywork that you end up with when engraving (particularly making sure your score doesn't have object collisions or ugly spacing) is refreshing. It has a _steep_ learning curve, but I found that once I'd spent enough time with it doing real work, I suddenly "got" the "Dorico way", and now using other engraving software leaves me some distance between unhappy and insanely frustrated. 

I had to clean up a Sibelius score the other day, and I really had a hard time moving a stave for the thousandth time to make the spacing clearer when I'd just had it done for me-- and better-- working on another piece in Dorico. I've always been a bit of a Sibelius zealot, but I'm losing the faith.

The biggest thing that kept Dorico my primary engraving/concert composition software was the lack of integration with NotePerformer. I spend so much time in Logic (let's not mention the horror show that is the Score Editor in Logic) doing work with high-end samples that it can be hard to "go back" to the terrible sound sets that are normally available (sorry Halion), but now that Dorico 2 can use NotePerformer, I'm probably going to drop Sibelius entirely. (I haven't used a new version since 7.5 given that I don't like the subscription model). I've already started work on a piece for Concert Band, which I can't imagine having done even six months ago in Dorico, but now I can't imagine doing it any other way. The flows, the way it thinks of players and instruments, the simple and effective dialogs that allow you to change the whole look of the score without having to worry that it is going to turn the entire thing into a hot mess of colliding objects... I'm just absolutely smitten.

It isn't perfect-- and it isn't for everyone-- but Dorico has gotten me more excited to write concert music than anything since Sibelius 1.0.


----------



## Virtual Virgin

Vik said:


> I guess I didn't even imagine, soon 40 years after MIDI was introduced, that you still only "aim" to introduce real time MIDI recording.



Absolutely. There is no way to take Dorico seriously with the absence of what is now rudimentary technology in this field. It's not icing on the cake, or even dessert. MIDI recording is at the heart of music making programs. That anyone even considered not putting it in the first professional release is insulting.


----------



## Saxer

Virtual Virgin said:


> There is no way to take Dorico seriously with the absence of what is now rudimentary technology in this field. It's not icing on the cake, or even dessert. MIDI recording is at the heart of music making programs. That anyone even considered not putting it in the first professional release is insulting.


Dorico is a notation app. I think it's something different than a music making program. The heart is music notation and the result is a score. Like a paint program doesn't take photos and a text program isn't a dictation app. Though these functions are really nice to have (and I really can't wait to have midi recording in Dorico) I'm happy that the focus is on notation and layout.

The best midi-to-notation app is Logic but the missing layout functions are really the part that let me change to Dorico for score writing. Midi recording is a joke for apps today. But interpreting midi notes into notation is a really hard task. In Logic you have to adapt your playing if you want good notation results and even then there's still a lot of edition to do. Nobody want's half baked solutions in Dorico. So I can understand that it's not a starter feature.


----------



## Vik

Saxer said:


> But interpreting midi notes into notation is a really hard task.


 OTOH, that's one of Dorico's strengths. When exporting stuff into Dorico as MIDI-files. it's obvious (with the right settings) that Dorico know well how to interpret MIDI notes and translate them into notation. So - if this works for MIDI import, why shouldn't it work for MIDI recordings? Of course there's a reason for that, but as far as I can tell, Dorico already knows a lot about translating MIDI notes into notation. 

I'm glad to hear that you also really can't wait to have MIDI recording in Dorico. But I don't agree in your logic ("Dorico is a notation app, not a music making app"). Even if we traditionally have seen apps as either music making apps or notation apps, C-Lab/Emagic showed already in the Atari days that one could combine the two. I even think that a main reason Notator and later Logic have been so popular, is that it has a score editor. IMO all music apps should have score editors (for those who need them); and a score editors should de designed to work well as music making apps. I've talked with many score users/music makers about this over the years, and pretty much every one I've talked with wish that either eg Logic should get a pre score editor, and/or that the score editors should get more DAW/music making features. I'm 100% sure that someone will do that (or maybe even are working on that already) too.


----------



## Dewdman42

I think Dorico is going to be a music making app also, they want to make it possible make end result mockups using it, so that a typical "composer", someone who is not recording vocals and guitars and all that kind of stuff...someone who works almost entirely with soft instruments and tends to compose more on the staff then at a midi keyboard....will thrive with Dorico and it will be possible to produce final end product mocked up scores with it..no need to go to a DAW for it. I think that is direction they are going and I like it... Its somewhere in between Sibelius and Cubase.

Now whether it should have real time midi record or not? Eh... I can see that would be debatable point, I hope they will add that, but I think for a while it will be more about entering music on the score, drawing in CC curves, etc. and rendering your mockup without actually having to play anything at the keyboard. 

For now, you can use another sequencer if you want to record midi and drag and drop the midi regions into Dorico, so that's not entirely unusable. But a simple midi real time record shouldn't be that hard to add, hopefully that will end up there too eventually.

For that matter, I hope it will have the ability to record real time midi and convert it to readable notation as most of the other notational programs are able to do.


----------



## Saxer

I didn't try to import midi files into Dorico (since MusicXML import works fine) but I'm glad to hear that interpreting midi already works fine! I think everybody who makes music and reads notation wants DAWs and notation programs grew together into one app. I just think as they started as a notation program the notation has to work fine first.


----------



## MrCambiata

I have spent the last weeks learning Dorico. There are some things I like better in Sibelius: some things require less clicks. For example, for adding a third over a melody you only have to press 3 in Sibelius. In Dorico you have to press Shift+I, then 3, then Enter. However, there are things I like in Dorico, like lengthening or shortening a note according to the grid. But the best thing is when your score is finished. You almost don’t have to clean anything in the parts, everything sits perfectly where it should, a pizz. is still attached to the right instrument and doesn’t jump to another one, etc.


----------



## jamwerks

I currently use Finale & Sibelius (7.5). Noteperformer is great, so excited that Dorico works. Will probably change over to 100% Dorico this Summer. Sibelius has gotten really expensive btw, you'd think they were run by the same guys as ProTools! Oops, they are! 

The real-time midi recording will probably come soon. They need "just" to copy that over from Cubase


----------



## Vik

MrCambiata said:


> There are some things I like better in Sibelius: some things require less clicks. For example, for adding a third over a melody you only have to press 3 in Sibelius. In Dorico you have to press Shift+I, then 3, then Enter.


I've come across many situations like that. IMO it would be much better if Dorico came with a lot more key command (options, they wouldn't have to be preassigned, but should be assignable with as few clicks as possible), so one could work the same way in Dorico as one is used to from previous score apps, or from the DAW one is using.


----------



## curtisschweitzer

Virtual Virgin said:


> Absolutely. There is no way to take Dorico seriously with the absence of what is now rudimentary technology in this field. It's not icing on the cake, or even dessert. MIDI recording is at the heart of music making programs. That anyone even considered not putting it in the first professional release is insulting.



Look, I think Dorico _should_ have real-time recording. It is a feature that would make many people's lives easier, including mine. Certainly I can understand those who are frustrated that it hasn't made it into the program even in version 2. But "insulting"? Anyone with a sufficient grasp of transcription and aural theory doesn't need it. And given that note input is so transcendently intuitive in the interface, I think it is perfectly possible to _not even miss it_. I (surprisingly) actually don't miss it-- probably because I never used it in Sibelius either, and so I don't think of engraving software in the same way that I do a DAW.

Worth noting that NotePerformer can't keep up with real-time MIDI recording in _any_ application, so even if it were present I can't see myself ever using it anyway.


----------



## Virtual Virgin

curtisschweitzer said:


> But "insulting"? Anyone with a sufficient grasp of transcription and aural theory doesn't need it. And given that note input is so transcendently intuitive in the interface, I think it is perfectly possible to _not even miss it_.



I've been transcribing my own work and other works for many years. At least a thousand files of notation from just the last year alone. There are still many advantages to playing in MIDI information and I would use it daily.
If I am writing a piano exercise, all I need is a click and to record into notation. If I want perfection I can fix it up later but generally all I need to do is document it and move on.

But really, there are some obvious points to make about the missing record function.
1) Sketching becomes more of a chore, doubling your work time if you compose at the piano.
2) Composing parts by playing to other parts is negated.
3) Getting Dorico to "perform" is far from optimal without real-time human performance nuances.

And yes, insulting.
MIDI recording has been around for decades. There are dozens of free apps for your phone to do it.
The fact that a $600 piece of *music composition software* does not have this feature is exactly insulting.


----------



## gyprock

“Insulting” ....disrespectful or scornfully abusive. Let’s revisit this thread in 6-12 months to see if Dorico still has the same behaviour to its customers.


----------



## curtisschweitzer

Virtual Virgin said:


> I've been transcribing my own work and other works for many years. At least a thousand files of notation from just the last year alone. There are still many advantages to playing in MIDI information and I would use it daily.
> If I am writing a piano exercise, all I need is a click and to record into notation. If I want perfection I can fix it up later but generally all I need to do is document it and move on.
> 
> But really, there are some obvious points to make about the missing record function.
> 1) Sketching becomes more of a chore, doubling your work time if you compose at the piano.
> 2) Composing parts by playing to other parts is negated.
> 3) Getting Dorico to "perform" is far from optimal without real-time human performance nuances.
> 
> And yes, insulting.
> MIDI recording has been around for decades. There are dozens of free apps for your phone to do it.
> The fact that a $600 piece of *music composition software* does not have this feature is exactly insulting.



Obviously Dorico would be _better_ if it had real-time recording. I at least am not arguing that point. I don't think anyone else is either, but I haven't been following the discussion terribly closely. I do think, however, that you're being a bit overly dramatic here. Indeed, this seems to me to be a matter of taste-- what tradeoffs do you prefer? For some, real-time recording is a must-have, and I think that's a perfectly valid requirement depending on your use-case. For others (me), the advantages I gain from Dorico outweigh not having this feature. Again, if you, like me, are using NotePerformer, _you can't use real-time recording easily anyway_, whether you're using Dorico, Sibelius, or Finale. That alone makes me care not even a little bit about this "missing" feature. But again, that's my use-case. Yours might be different, and I wouldn't presume to argue. It doesn't sound like the trade-offs work for you. But I'd still argue that calling this "insulting" is more than a little bit over the top.


----------



## Vik

gyprock said:


> “Insulting” ....disrespectful or scornfully abusive. Let’s revisit this thread in 6-12 months to see if Dorico still has the same behaviour to its customers.


Insulting is a strong word. Disrespectful is more accurate. Not being able to use the most intuitive and musical way to enter music (especially piano pieces) does represent a lack of respect the way I see it, but it’s maybe not an “insult”.


----------



## JJP

I find it humorous that people can feel insulted or disrespected by a notation program. Now THAT is the power of music.


----------



## Saxer

Calling a missing feature "insulting" in a software is kind of crackbrained. At the end it's just a question of a choosen adjective.


----------



## Vik

JJP said:


> I find it humorous that people can feel insulted or disrespected by a notation program. Now THAT is the power of music.


I don’t “feel” disrespected, not being emotional about this.  But when they after so long time can’t even say that they actually have decided to do it, and not just aim to do it suggests to me that they don’t “respect” (wrong word maybe, pardon me English as usual) how essential recording midi is in the music making process (for many of us).


----------



## MrCambiata

Well, the last statement on the Dorico forum 3 days ago was that those things (real time recording) are high up on their list.


----------



## ptram

I would feel disrespectful to my own intelligence, if I was expecting from a software something that was not included in the spec list.


----------



## Vik

Well, some stuff can be on some company's to do list for many years, and MIDI recording has been mentioned as something the intend to do for a long time already. But if it's high up on their list, that's very good.


----------



## richard kurek

Vik said:


> Well, some stuff can be on some company's to do list for many years, and MIDI recording has been mentioned as something the intend to do for a long time already. But if it's high up on their list, that's very good.


i agree but should be number one on the list from the beginning, the team from sebilius odd they didnt pay attention to this feature


----------



## Vardaro

I stopped at Sibelius 6.2, as I'm too old to learn The Ribbon. For playback I prepare a second score with shortened note-lengths at phrase-ends, and sometimes even insert mesures containing only a 1/32nd rest between phrases. This gives a noticeable improvement in realism.

I'm looking forward to Dorico's midi controls, and piano-roll adjustments which won't affect the written score.


----------



## Bollen

Just to chime in, after making the mistake of Buying Dorico a week ago (my fault entirely, didn't try the demo), I have to say I'm extremely disappointed with this piece of software. So MIDI implementation is in its infancy, fine I get it, it takes time to develop that and it's primarily a notation program... False! Considering this is version 2 already, they've made the weirdest priority list that I can think of. You have rare articulations like bowing behind the bridge, but you don't have a simple articulation like a fall or a bend? How many people out there are writing 19th century classical music or avant-garde contemporary pieces versus people writing for film, television, jazz, funk bands, pop, etc?

So far my list with the frustration goes like this:

1.- You need to enable Aero, what??? That horrible microsoft theme that makes everything white and irritates your eyes after 8 hours of work? Fine, I can adjust.

2.- No scoops, falls, bends that are part of 50% of the paid work I do, fine! I'm sure it'll come around at some point, but considering it's the Sibelius team we might need till version 6 again.

3.- Hmmm... Can't swing either... Fine, if I can't add modern articulations might as well do the whole thing in another program.

4.- OK, maybe I'll try orchestrating the Trumpet concerto I've been commissioned to write. Hmmm... No thundersheet, that's odd, very common percussion instrument. Fine, watch a few youtube videos (as no proper manual yet) try to create it, crash!!! Three days on the Forum with the staff trying to solve it.

5.- OK, in the meanwhile I'll configure Dorico to work with the VE Pro project. Hmmm... Cannot go beyond 16 channels, that's odd. Fine, I'll just use VE Event input. Hmmm... Why is it misbehaving now, getting all sorts of clicks and pops... Ooops crash! Another two days on the forum, turns out my Taskbar replacement is interfering, fine I can live without it.

6.- Oh! It turns out my folder-restore-session app is also interfering. Hmmm... Odd, I've had these two programs for ten years and have never affected anything. In fact I've never had a crash or any type of problems with this machine. Fine, I'll adjust... Sigh!

7.- OK everything's configured, let's run the trumpet which is the only thing written in at the moment. Hmmm... Plays only a few notes. Ah! The expression map says natural instead of normal which is what Dorico prefers. Fine, change 10 Expression Maps to include the articulation "normal"... Sigh!

8.- Hmmm... Trill is not playing back. Check forum, trill playback is not supported. But I'm using a keyswitch for it, Dorico doesn't need to play it, just activate the bloody keyswitch... Starting to get annoyed.

9.- Hmmm... Can't edit velocities, not yet supported.... Annoyed!

10.- Try to add symbols instead for scoops, accordion symbols, etc. Not yet supported, but you can manually move them in Engraving mode, seriously??? In the 21st century??? Over a thousand bars on 24 instruments and I have to do it manually? Now irritated...!

So in conclusion, can't do notation, can't do playback so it's missing features on BOTH sides of things...! I mean seriously, I couldn't sympathise more with the term "insulting", because the price tag does imply that at least it should do notation on a professional level, at least in part better than say a FREE notation program like Musescore. So now I'm stuck with a reconfigured computer, that worked fabulously for ten years, Aero plays havoc with everything constantly doing something in the background, had to disable all my useful worflow programs and wasted a week trying to get this thing to work on basic music, not even some avant-garde piece full of graphics or what not...​


----------



## JJP

Dorico has the potential to be a spectacular program. I haven't purchased Dorico yet because I don't want to pay to be a beta tester, and I am not purchasing any software that doesn't have the feature set necessary for my work which Finale and Sibelius already have. I let others live on the bleeding edge. I make my living in a part of the music industry with very high expectations, so the tool has to work. I can't work with a tool that doesn't do what I need.

For now Dorico is a work in progress, which is acceptable. Development takes time. I'm not interested in funding software development without being able to partake in the profits. That's what I would be doing if I invested in Dorico at this point.

However, I am watching development. If/when it gets to the point where it is a serious competitor to Finale and Sibelius, you can bet I'll be jumping on board. We have yet to reach that point.


----------



## S4410

Let me add my voice to those that find - in this day and age - the lack of real-time Midi recording (ok, not insulting but seriously) frustrating . I also bought Dorico from day 1 to support Daniel Spreadbury 's team. I hope it gets implemented soon


----------



## Dewdman42

I recently purchased Dorico and I do think it will be quite something in 5 years from now. I also think it’s still behind the curve for now and I can understand why practically minded pros would wait and see. I chose to get on the train partly to support the Dorico team and partly because I am genuinely interested to see the typesetting results it produces and play along with the development process. I am not the kind of musician that wants to sit around tweaking finale all day long to look right. I am excited about the niche Dorico aims to fill which will NOT be just another finale/Sibelius/musescore replacement but rather a new concept and I am looking forward to see where they go with it. It’s worth it to me to get in now even though over the next five years I will probably spend a few hundred more in upgrade fees.


----------



## Bollen

JJP said:


> Dorico has the potential to be a spectacular program. I haven't purchased Dorico yet because I don't want to pay to be a beta tester, and I am not purchasing any software that doesn't have the feature set necessary for my work which Finale and Sibelius already have. I let others live on the bleeding edge. I make my living in a part of the music industry with very high expectations, so the tool has to work. I can't work with a tool that doesn't do what I need.
> 
> For now Dorico is a work in progress, which is acceptable. Development takes time. I'm not interested in funding software development without being able to partake in the profits. That's what I would be doing if I invested in Dorico at this point.
> 
> However, I am watching development. If/when it gets to the point where it is a serious competitor to Finale and Sibelius, you can bet I'll be jumping on board. We have yet to reach that point.



Hear, hear...! As I said, it is entirely my fault for not checking out properly and that's exactly how I feel now i.e. like I've paid to be a beta-tester.

The problem of course is that more and more I get requested to produce a playback with the scores these days. For years and years I have composed/arranged in Sibelius then dump the MIDI into Cubase and spend ages cleaning up the Keyswitches and then humanising the performance. This procedure works, but it's very time consuming. The problem came when trying to write the orchestration for the aforementioned concerto, every time I changed a percussion instrument (same player/staff), Sibelius would default to the bloody snare. Another problem is that Sibelius is not always consistent with its Keyswitches and that can be very annoying (e.g. when it's just one of 22 strings that's playing pizz when the other are in Legato). So when I saw that Dorico had implemented MIDI CC editor I jumped on the boat without realising they had neglected higher priorities... Live and learn...


----------



## antonyb

I bought 1.0 knowing updates would come. Tools like those are good to be in early because of the complexity... and I definitely love their approach, I also saw potential.
However was disappointed (or rather limited) very quickly and had to get Sibelius to actually get work done.

THEN, Dorico 2.0 came out and I had to pay $99 for it... that was a big downer.
I’ll wait for a few more releases before paying for upgrade.


----------



## joebaggan

antonyb said:


> I bought 1.0 knowing updates would come. Tools like those are good to be in early because of the complexity... and I definitely love their approach, I also saw potential.
> However was disappointed very quickly and had to get Sibelius to actually get work done.
> 
> THEN, Dorico 2.0 came out and I had to pay $99 for it... that was a big downer.
> I’ll wait for a few more releases before paying for upgrade.



Yep, I bought the original and now they want $100 more for an upgrade. For those who paid $500+ for the original quite unfinished product, it's pretty presumptuous to ask the early investors who took a chance to fork out another $100 for a v1.2 to v2.0 upgrade. No thanks - my last Cubase upgrade was 1/2 that.


----------



## Vardaro

In September, I can probably ask for the educational crossgrade.
If I no longer qualify a year or two later, will I have to make up the standard crossgrade price?


----------



## Nathanael Iversen

While all the complaints are true, it is still the most promising development in music notation software in a very, very long time. I WANT Daniel and team to succeed in their vision. It is a big one, and clearly not easy. They are making solid progress, however, and i'm happy to be along for the journey. The parts that are working, I find to be a signifiant improvement over Sibelius.


----------



## Vik

Nathanael Iversen said:


> I WANT Daniel and team to succeed in their vision.


I think their vision is to make the perfect app for engravers, and with the best looking results. I honestly wish they would have a broader vision than they seem to have, both in term


MrCambiata said:


> There are some things I like better in Sibelius: some things require less clicks. For example, for adding a third over a melody you only have to press 3 in Sibelius. In Dorico you have to press Shift+I, then 3, then Enter.


This is, btw, a good example of an area where I simply disagree with Steinberg's 'vision'. 
But of course I also hope they succeed in their vision; I'm even impressed that Yamaha/Steinberg allow the team develop Dorico ignoring so many important wishes from certain user groups for so long time. I'm surprised they actually can afford to do that (in terms of reduced sales), but I guess many developer teams would like to have the freedom the Dorico team has.


----------



## Nathanael Iversen

While I agree that they are making an app that does a great job with engraving, their vision is clearly far more reaching. They want to make a notation program that can use VST's, and have piano roll/CC type editing. This is the combination that so many of us have wanted for a very long time. Not a DAW that can "kind-of-notate", but a notation first program that can access sample libraries and articulations. 

Yamaha can easily afford a dozen people working in London for many, many years. Steinberg knows software development costs. And they are not "ignoring" anyone. It takes 3-5 years to build fully featured, professional grade software in a mature industry. Many things have dependencies. As I look at their progress it is easy to see the framework they are building. Any of us can disagree about the order in which they are adding things to the framework, but I can see the logic. 

The story of Dorico will be "gradually, and then suddenly". I don't know where that tipping point is. Right now, they are gradually adding features to a very solid core platform. At some future point, they will quietly pass the point of having "most things that most people need", and they will "suddenly" be a very desirable product. 

What seems certain to me is that the slope of the line marking their progress is definitely "up and to the right". If they keep going, good things will happen. 

Not everyone is an early adopter of software. And things take "as long as they take". This is fine. But having been around a lot of software development, I think they are making excellent progress for their team size, and I like that they are keeping standards high. Notice that the complaints are mostly around what has not been delivered yet. What has been delivered is excellent and well-thought out.


----------



## Vik

Nathanael Iversen said:


> Any of us can disagree about the order in which they are adding things to the framework, but I can see the logic.
> 
> The story of Dorico will be "gradually, and then suddenly".


Thanks for your reply. Yes, in some areas the above will be true. But regarding the example @MrCambiata brought, i don't think there will be a solution even for those of us who want key command equivalent for all relevant functions.

I discussed this with a Steinberg rep over at their forum a while ago, and he both said that they don't have any plans to introduce key commands for adding intervals above below, and that Dorico's way of working is to use popovers. 

To refer to that example again, an argument against using 3 to add a third is that that key command already is used for changing durations. But if the KCs for changing durations could be user assignable as well, that wouldn't be a problem. Besides, one could use eg Control-3, Shift-3 etc for various commands related to the number 3. 

But more user freedom isn't among the things that will show up gradually or suddenly in that area. I don't know if this is true for other stuff I miss in Dorico, like more contextual menus everywhere, optional popup/help info everywhere, or mouse control for those who want to use the mouse more (eg if they don't use Dorico regularly because they compose in a DAW, and there for haven't memorised Dorico's key commands or popover commands). 

But at least Steinberg is open about more key command control in the above mentioned area not being on their list at all. 

OTOH, maybe a built in macro solution could take care of all that - or already does that? This way, users could use "3" as a shortcut for Shift+I, 3 and Return.


----------



## Nathanael Iversen

Yes, keyboard equivalency is likely low on the list. I would imagine it will come well after their UI team makes whatever improvements they believe are better than their last work. Whether they are improvements or not will be seen. 

Apple had a bit of this when they went to Final Cut X. A lot of the UI changed and many were unhappy. In the end, some switched to Adobe Premier (I did, as i also switched to PC), but after the shouting died down, many admitted that the new ways were often better. 

UI is hard. Human habits run deep - particularly when most people have decade-long muscle memory from Sibelius (me) or Finale (many others). I suspect that they will ultimately be forced by the market to add some kind of layer or full assignability, but as you say, that may take some time.


----------



## bryla

I'm on board as a 'beta-tester'. Using it now and then just to see how things are. Input a cue from a score but literally had to stop as Dorico has no way of doing harp glisses or pedals.

Many years ago the Sibelius team asked for suggestions and I wrote that I would like to see instrument cues as small windows into the other parts. Glad they went with that idea here


----------



## jamwerks

No Harp pedals yet?


----------



## Mike Connelly

Is there a manual available for version 2?


----------



## pinki

I just don't understand this.
They release Version 1 and everyone howled because it wasn't remotely ready. 

And then they release Version 2 with a clear opportunity to make good... and everyone is (justifiably) howling again because it's...not really ready. 

Why are people who are paying so much money being made to be beta-testers? They release things too early. Once was forgivable, twice is not. I'm sorry but I'm in the "insulting" camp.

But the history of Notation Software is a bit bonkers. I paid just shy of £500 for Sibelius version 3. It never really worked on Mac at all, just crashed all the time. A total mess and the most expensive software I have ever bought. Those two brothers became millionaires I believe!

I use Notion 6 now and it cost £50 and I love it. (not for engraving though!).


----------



## Saxer

bryla said:


> I'm on board as a 'beta-tester'. Using it now and then just to see how things are. Input a cue from a score but literally had to stop as Dorico has no way of doing harp glisses or pedals.


Yepp, no pedals... but what's wrong with the harp gliss?


----------



## bryla

Saxer said:


> Yepp, no pedals... but what's wrong with the harp gliss?


Sorry about that! Hadn’t been able to figure that out and couldn’t find anything last time I tried.


----------



## Bollen

Nathanael Iversen said:


> While I agree that they are making an app that does a great job with engraving, their vision is clearly far more reaching. They want to make a notation program that can use VST's, and have piano roll/CC type editing. This is the combination that so many of us have wanted for a very long time. Not a DAW that can "kind-of-notate", but a notation first program that can access sample libraries and articulations



What about Overture 5? It can write professionally looking parts no problem (it has very sophisticated Engraving options) and the MIDI editor is almost DAW level of functionality...

Disclaimer: I moved away from it because I get too many crashes on my PC (which doesn't seem to be happening to others, also no recovery feature) and because I find the developer unbearably rude and unfriendly.


----------



## Dewdman42

Overture 5 is definitely the same concept as is notion.

I used overture 4 on some orch scoring and recording projects 10 years ago and it worked quite well. Overture 5 is a complete rewrite and I gave him the money immediately a few years ago but since that time it has failed to leave beta stage on the Mac platform with significant bugs. It is a worthy product but the dev is never going to be able to compete with Dorico as he is a one man shop and proud of it. Dorico has Steinberg behind it and a proven team with advanced notation typesetting experience. 

Notion also can do all this midi stuff. It’s printed output sucks though


----------



## MatFluor

Bollen said:


> Disclaimer: I moved away from it because I get too many crashes on my PC (which doesn't seem to be happening to others, also no recovery feature) and because I find the developer unbearably rude and unfriendly.



That's the issue with Overture. I have it too and can confirm what I saw. The main issue is that it's just one developer - which isn't inherently bad, but makes for slow progress and sometimes issues take long to resolve. I like the overall thing, but I think Dorico will overtake it without problems.


----------



## Nathanael Iversen

Bollen said:


> What about Overture 5? It can write professionally looking parts no problem (it has very sophisticated Engraving options) and the MIDI editor is almost DAW level of functionality...



I'm with Dewdman. I use Cubase relatively happily and trust the ex-Sibelius team to do a top shelf job. Spreadbury made some noises on his blog about integrating to Cubase, and I'm assuming that is why we have Expression maps, etc. 

I haven't done the work yet, but putting a small sample based template into Dorico is on the list. I gather from other posts in this thread that it isn't yet ready for a large VEP template, but that is clearly the intent over time. (And what I'd like it to be)

Right now, Dorico is on my travel laptop. I'm not relying on it for anything mission critical, so my expectations are not out of line with its present reality. I still have Sibelius on the main DAW with all of the deep features.


----------



## cmillar

Question about Dorico note input:

I use Sibelius right now. One thing I like about it is the way that you can to have the Note Input Mode mimic Finale...in which you can choose to have the MIDI note played first, and then you choose the rhythmic duration on the keypad. 

(..this way, I can actually work on ideas on the keyboard without worrying that I’m creating an endless stream of jiberish when the software thinks I’m wanting to input all my noodling around.)

So, does Dorico let you choose the MIDI note first...and then choose the rhythmic value when composing?

That’s a deal breaker for me if it doesn’t. I’ve stuck with Sibelius once they implemented this feature. It’s very ‘composer friendly’ when you can actually noodle around and compose first, and then decided to input what you’ve worked out without worrying about everything you’ve been playing the last 5 minutes being streamed onto the score page.


----------



## Bollen

cmillar said:


> Question about Dorico note input:
> 
> I use Sibelius right now. One thing I like about it is the way that you can to have the Note Input Mode mimic Finale...in which you can choose to have the MIDI note played first, and then you choose the rhythmic duration on the keypad.
> 
> (..this way, I can actually work on ideas on the keyboard without worrying that I’m creating an endless stream of jiberish when the software thinks I’m wanting to input all my noodling around.)
> 
> So, does Dorico let you choose the MIDI note first...and then choose the rhythmic value when composing?
> 
> That’s a deal breaker for me if it doesn’t. I’ve stuck with Sibelius once they implemented this feature. It’s very ‘composer friendly’ when you can actually noodle around and compose first, and then decided to input what you’ve worked out without worrying about everything you’ve been playing the last 5 minutes being streamed onto the score page.



Funny that you say that, because I find Sibelius always inputting my "noodling around", because you have to press Escape so many bloody times to get it to deselect... But maybe it's because we work differently i.e. I use keyboards to input everything (typing and piano keyboards).


----------



## cmillar

Bollen said:


> Funny that you say that, because I find Sibelius always inputting my "noodling around", because you have to press Escape so many bloody times to get it to deselect... But maybe it's because we work differently i.e. I use keyboards to input everything (typing and piano keyboards).



Yeah, that's why I choose to have it 'choose note, then duration' (ala Finale)

Otherwise, I spend all my time hitting the 'Esc' key for sure.

Works best for me, as I can 'noodle around' without acidentally inputting.

But....does anyone know if Dorico can 'choose note, then duration' when using a MIDI keyboard and the keypad?


----------



## Bollen

cmillar said:


> Yeah, that's why I choose to have it 'choose note, then duration' (ala Finale)
> 
> Otherwise, I spend all my time hitting the 'Esc' key for sure.
> 
> Works best for me, as I can 'noodle around' without acidentally inputting.
> 
> But....does anyone know if Dorico can 'choose note, then duration' when using a MIDI keyboard and the keypad?



I've been using Sibelius since version 4 and I didn't know you cold do this, I'll definitely give it a go and see if my workflow improves, thank you!

After a little search on the Internet I found this quote from Steinberg's forum: "At this time you cannot use pitch before duration in Dorico. The subject has been raised, but AFAIK it has not been scheduled." 

It's dated January this year so it doesn't look like it'll be coming anytime soon....


----------



## pinki

So I just downloaded the demo of Dorico2 and well... wow. I take back my earlier comments. I mean it's really beautiful to work with and is original in its thinking. I'm sure I'll discover all sorts of gremlins but for now..wow.


----------



## Vik

Have key commands assignments become easier in Dorico 2.0?
In Logic, all I need to do is to open the key command window, search for the name of the KC, click on Learn after I selected the key command and then press the key combination I want to use.

In Dorico, last time I checked (haven't been updating to version 2):

1) Select Preferences from a menu with a mouse
2) Select Key Commands inside the Preferences area
3) Click once to activate the search field and search for a word, for instance "play"
4) Dorico shows me several subsections which are closed with a triangle, and I click one of them
5) I press on the subtitle called Play, but the key commands containing the word inside this subsection aren't displayed only, a lot others are as well, so I try something else: I select the subheader "Project"
6) Here I see only KCs containing "play", and I select "Player.SetChordSymbolVisibility" (and no, I don't like such titles, why not have eg "Player - Set Chord Symbol Visibility" instead?).
7) I click where it says Press Shortcut, and I press a shortcut.
8) Now it seems as if I also need to press Add Key Commands, because Apply is greyed out.
9) I press Apply.


At least twice as many steps.


----------



## Maximvs

For all the Dorico users out there,

I am very interested to know how's the current transcription algorithm in Dorico when recording the music via an external keyboard controller directly into Dorico, if this is possible of course...

Thanks a lot in advance for any feedback... Cheers, Max T.


----------



## MrCambiata

Massimo said:


> For all the Dorico users out there,
> 
> I am very interested to know how's the current transcription algorithm in Dorico when recording the music via an external keyboard controller directly into Dorico, if this is possible of course...
> 
> Thanks a lot in advance for any feedback... Cheers, Max T.


It's not possible yet. I record into Digital Performer, which has a fantastic transcription engine and import the musicXML file to Dorico.


----------



## Vik

They've said that this will be implemented real time MIDI recording in 'due course' since long before it was released - maybe circa 5 years now, haven't they? I think Steinberg took over the Sibelius team in 2012. I guess they feel the time isn't right yet.


----------



## ptram

cmillar said:


> One thing I like about it is the way that you can to have the Note Input Mode mimic Finale...in which you can choose to have the MIDI note played first, and then you choose the rhythmic duration on the keypad.


This can't be done with Dorico, now. But there is a related feature that I like very much: you can enter a rough sequence of pitches, and then, with the Insert mode on, change the duration of the entered notes. All subsequent notes will move forward or backward, in accordance with the entered duration on the selected note.

Paolo


----------



## cmillar

I guess it's coming along...but I'm sure that many composers like myself won't consider it until they implement a function like 'Speedy Entry' from Finale, or the option to 'choose pitch before duration' as in Sibelius.


----------



## Maximvs

Thanks guys for your kind replies and feedback on my question about the 'real time' input mode not yet implemented in Dorico... I understand that at present Dorico is already a good composition software but for me being able to also record in lines is an important feature that I hope will come sooner rather than later... Cheers, Max T.


----------



## dankreider

Vik said:


> Have key commands assignments become easier in Dorico 2.0?
> In Logic, all I need to do is to open the key command window, search for the name of the KC, click on Learn after I selected the key command and then press the key combination I want to use.
> 
> In Dorico, last time I checked (haven't been updating to version 2):
> 
> 1) Select Preferences from a menu with a mouse
> 2) Select Key Commands inside the Preferences area
> 3) Click once to activate the search field and search for a word, for instance "play"
> 4) Dorico shows me several subsections which are closed with a triangle, and I click one of them
> 5) I press on the subtitle called Play, but the key commands containing the word inside this subsection aren't displayed only, a lot others are as well, so I try something else: I select the subheader "Project"
> 6) Here I see only KCs containing "play", and I select "Player.SetChordSymbolVisibility" (and no, I don't like such titles, why not have eg "Player - Set Chord Symbol Visibility" instead?).
> 7) I click where it says Press Shortcut, and I press a shortcut.
> 8) Now it seems as if I also need to press Add Key Commands, because Apply is greyed out.
> 9) I press Apply.
> 
> 
> At least twice as many steps.



Vik, I recently switched to Dorico from Finale after 20 years. 

I do find custom key commands quite easy. For example, someone mentioned earlier wanting to avoid a popover to add an interval. I’ve assigned the interval popover to Q. So to add a note a 3rd above, I type Q, then 3, enter. 

I’ve assigned about two dozen custom key commands, as well as some macros using AHK. 

I’m extremely pleased. I can understand the frustration at the lack of real-time MIDI input, but otherwise, calling it a “beta program” is mystifying to me. It’s no such thing. 

Best regards,
Dan


----------



## Dewdman42

I'm starting to get into it. I really like the concept of being able to have multiple layouts referencing a single flow. I like the note entry and editing modes they have come up with, I think once you memorize key commands it can be very fast way to work, almost like working in a text editor like vi, if that means anything to you. I also like how it does a lot of smart stuff in terms of repositioning notes, re-beaming, re-tieing, etc.. when you add or remove or change meters or slide things around. I think this is going to be much faster to enter music and get the right result then the other products I have tried in the past.


----------



## Vik

dankreider said:


> I do find custom key commands quite easy. For example, someone mentioned earlier wanting to avoid a popover to add an interval. I’ve assigned the interval popover to Q. So to add a note a 3rd above, I type Q, then 3, enter.
> 
> I’ve assigned about two dozen custom key commands, as well as some macros using AHK.


Sure, certain things can be done that way/by creating macros etc. But when someone launches a new program and defines it as thew new standard, and users (like maybe 8-10 people have done is this thread) have described it as feeling like Dorico is in was (when they wrote what they did) in some kind of beta testing stage, Steinberg should IMO check if all those who felt or feel that maybe - at least to some degree - are/were right. Dorico is still missing essential stuff.

But not all of it feels like beta, of course - there's lots of good stuff in there, some stuff feels like pre-alpha, and some important stuff isn't in there at all.

One still cannot grab a note and move it up/down/left/right with the mouse. I have a feeling that it will never be implemented, because I heard that it wasn't implemented in Sibelius until Avid fired the team which now develops Dorico (please correct m if this is wrong, anyone!). No Cubase integration yet. No time warp/beat mapping. No voice separation tool a la Logic. No Ideas Hub. Way too few contextual menus. Still need for the user to create macros for basic functions. A ridiculous way to reassign key commands (see post above). No good authorisation solution. Last time I tried to import chords into Dorico, it was way behind Sibelius (in terms of how they were displayed). No MIDI recording, and so on.

Some Steinberg rep wrote somewhere that being able to record MIDI in Dorico wasn't the main culprit, it was figuring out how to handle the recorded MIDI notes. Not sure if the answer could be something else - in terms of notation - than quantising it (most likely with three independent options: off, quantise what you see/quantise what you hear)

But most of all, I miss features that some clever people implemented in other, related product in the 14th century, when the first clavichords and harpsichords appeared (probably earlier, actually); features that would be easy and highly relevant to implement in todays music apps, including Dorico - but the software developers may not be interested in doing that. I'm thinking of stuff one easily can do on the piano: if you play a chord and want to check how it sounds if replacing the Bb with an A, you just raise your hand, play the chord with an A instead of a Bb, and you'll immediately heard how that would sound. It can be done in less than a second. Not so in Dorico.
Likewise, if I want to try out a different harmonic sequence than I already have created, I can - still by using a 600 year old innovation - just play back and forth between the chords and hear how they will sound in their context in the timeline. Not so with Dorico. Even good, old Sibelius can do these things (in an almost perfect way). I asked the Dorico team if there was an improvement in this area in Dorico 2, but the answer was negative - not even a 'due course' comment.

The example above (showing that it takes 9 steps to reassign a key command in Dorico) isn't the only clearly user-unfriendly function in Dorico. They unfortunately seem to have been thinking "let's try to make something which is clearly better than Finale and Sibelius, instead of thinking "how can we implement these features in the best possible way - from a user perspective?".

Another example: there wasn't (last time I checked) a key command for toggle flats/sharps, which could be used in simple situations where you wanted a Bb to become an A# or vice versa. Instead you need two different key commands: Respell Note Name Above (enharmonic) and Respell Note Name Below (enharmonic).

And, talking about the 14th century: We've had musical notation for more than 3000 years now. For hundreds of years, we have been possible to create our own bank of musical ideas, simply by writing them down on a piece of paper, and store them along with other musical ideas, in a pile/box/tray or whatever. Why don't all modern music programs offer a software version of that? The whole music industry - in any genre - is based around good musical ideas. Forget about production , mixing, notation etc.... if the musical idea isn't good, the end product won't be good. It seems that people still have to buy/use Sibelius to get such functionality in 2018.


----------



## Vardaro

omiroad said:


> No.


Thanks. Daniel said the same on the blog.


----------



## Vardaro

Vik said:


> One still cannot grab a note and move it up/down/left/right with the mouse. I have a feeling that it will never be implemented, because I heard that it wasn't implemented in Sibelius until Avid fired the team which now develops Dorico (please correct m if this is wrong, anyone!)


I can do that in my Sibelius 6...


----------



## Dewdman42

My impression with dorico at this point is that it has very good keyboard music entry and editing, if you get good with the QWERTY keyboard you can enter and edit music with the kind of efficiency you have when using a text editor. That is actually much faster and more efficient then using the mouse, though less immediately intuitive. This seems to be a philosophical choice by daniel’s team.

I do not think it is a bug or oversight that you can’t drag a note to a new pitch, it is a design choice. The best way to learn and use dorico is to try to adapt to that philosophy and embrace the good aspects of it, see where it gets you. In my view dorico is optimized for QWERTY entering and editing more like a text editor. It’s a different way of working but can be very efficient once learned.

It’s incredibly fast to enter music from the QWERTY, including attached slurs, articulations and dynamics as you enter the music note by note. Honestly I am really inspired to learn this approach until I can do it without looking down at the keyboard.


----------



## Vik

Dewdman42 said:


> My impression with dorico at this point is that it has very good keyboard music entry and editing, if you get good with the QWERTY keyboard you can enter and edit music with the kind of efficiency you have when using a text editor. That is actually much faster and more efficient then using the mouse, though less immediately intuitive. This seems to be a philosophical choice by daniel’s team.



They surely want people to use key commands and not a mouse, I understand that. I also prefer key commands over mouse in programs I use all the time. But I don't prefer key commands over real time MIDI recording, and also - for all those who are checking out Dorico - or don't use it regularly - it would be a of great help if all functions were available both as menu commands, key commands and mouse control.

"I do not think it is a bug or oversight that you can’t drag a note to a new pitch, it is a design choice. The best way to learn and use dorico is to try to adapt to that philosophy and embrace the good aspects of it, see where it gets you. In my view dorico is optimized for QWERTY entering and editing more like a text editor. It’s a different way of working but can be very efficient once learned."

That sounds like a great plan... for engravers. I believe that most most potential Dorico users aren't engravers, but composers/song writers/musicians/educators etc which 'main thing' isn't to use a score app all the time. They probably have at least one DAW already, and a lot of workflow habits that'd like to keep. Dorico isn't and doesn't want to be a DAW, so for those of us who'll end up using at least two programs, maybe 3 or for even 4... (some use two DAWs and two score apps!), _it's counter-musical to try to adjust the workflow in other apps against Dorico which is the newest, least mature and also the most specialised product out there_.

For all those who can play piano, it feels wrong to have to enter a piano piece with key commands, one note at a time. And most composers have knowledge about playing piano, even if they may have violin or something else as their main instrument. Dorico needs to be more piano (and piano piece) friendly.

I like to record without a click, and to use beat mapping/time warping after the recording to get bar lines etc right - and I can't rely of Dorico for any of this. So Dorico will be something I start to use after a piece is more or less finished. Therefore, I'd like to adjust my Dorico workflow to the DAW I use until Dorcico gets better. And since I maybe will using Dorico 10% of my time for now, every action that can be made without first searching for what the relevant functions are called in Dorico and then memorize Dorico's key commands/pop-up boxes etc will be a huge time saver.

But I think you are right that this is about some kind of product philosophy, and that's what I'm worried about too. Because - what kind of program are they about to develop if they (and Steinberg) are OK with a key command window which needs 9 steps to reassign a key command?

Music programs are coded my programmers, of course - and maybe also to some degree _designed_ by people who are used to coding more than they are used to making music. That's why they sometimes implement functions in ways that they find easy, but which seems very counter-intuitive by their users. So it all boils down to how good they are at listening both to their users and those who could have been/may become their users.


----------



## Dewdman42

I don’t think it’s musically counter intuitive at all to enter notes from the QWERTY one note at a time. Some people are accustomed to using pencil on manuscript paper which might be more mimicked by the mouse, but that is social conditioning. Using a midi keyboard can also be combined with QWERTY in dorico right now, they just don’t have real time input yet. They have already stated that they plan to bring it eventually. If you can’t live without that I suggest dorico is not the program for you. You seem kind of upset about that.

I am not a copyist nor engraver but I actually never found real time input that useful with other notational programs I use. I’d rather just use logic or another daw at that point. There is a certain musical thinking process that takes place when entering music note by note onto a staff and that is the advantage of composing from the beginning in a notational program. I don’t see any reason why QWERTY operation is any less musical then using a mouse, and certainly it’s more efficient. Combined with a midi keyboard it’s a little more musical perhaps but the thinking process involved in step entry onto a staff is what happens when using a notation program. 

You can already record in real time in your daw and drag midi regions into dorico I might add, if you want to fool around with improvisation at the midi keyboard.


----------



## Dewdman42

What I actually think would be pretty useful is the ability to play real time ideas into a sketch pad area and then optional move those bits or parts of those bits into the score I’m working on. Dorico will get there eventually. They are a small team and have a huge list of things they are trying to do. It will take time. If you can’t wait that long, then don’t. But I see this as just an ongoing process as they develop the software. It takes a lot of man hours to develop top shelf software. I find it interesting and engaging to watch it slowly evolve and even potentially have some influence perhaps


----------



## Saxer

Vik said:


> For all those who can play piano, it feels wrong to have to enter a piano piece with key commands, one note at a time.


It doesn't feel wrong for people who can play piano to write music note by note with a pencil on paper. A notation program is the type writer. I'd like to have recording options in Dorico as most users but hey, it's a notation program, not a DAW. So lets just wait until the have implemented it and don't get upset for something we can't change here.


----------



## Dewdman42

As an example related to dragging notes, how many text editors work that way where you drag a letter or word from one place to another? Generally they don’t. Why? Well for one thing it’s really easy to accidentally drag notes or other objects when you intended to draq a marquee around them to select them all. Aside from the fact that people are accustomed to easily being able to drag notes around, it does not neccessarily mean it’s the best way to work. You probably spend a lot more time selecting objects with marquees then you do dragging notes to new pitches. That alone dictates that it should be easy and foolproof to draw marquee lines and if needed, slightly more cumbersome to change note pitches.

That is certainly a debatable design philosophy and I don’t even know if that is precisely theirs, but the point is to keep an open mind, try to embrace what is being brought forth and see where it gets you


----------



## Vik

I'm not 'upset', guys - I've just put my Dorcio enthusiasm on hold for a while. 
I'm used to entering notes with pen and pencil, btw, and agree that there's something else which happens when dealing with one note at a time that recording stuff in real time. I just think the best solution is to let the users decide which method he wants to use - that's all. I use different methods myself, depending on the situation I'm in. I clearly prefer key commands over mouse in Logic, for instance, but dislike if other apps I try don't offer mouse based actions as well, especially in Dorico's case since the way to customise Dorico's key commands is the way it is. 
When I use a computer instead of pencil and paper it is because I want something different than my old method - with more and other options. So I need to make macros etc to get a better workflow than Dorico offers. 
I have nothing against the Dorico team btw, but maybe against the fact that there seem to be no overall 'user-friendliness control' happening before the release, where some Steinberg reps can send the release candidate back to the team and say "please implement this in a way that takes no more than three steps".

And - in case you are in doubt... I like all the "typewriter" functions in Dorico; I just happen to want it to become more like a musical instrument and less like a type writer - as an additional option. 

Next time I update Dorico, I'll check if I can drag MIDI regions from Logic straight into Dorico. But for now I'll just keep not updating it, and use other tools instead. No big deal. And since I now know that "in due course" may mean several years from now, I'm not going to be upset in the future either - it's much easier and more relaxing to simply lower my expectations anyway. I'm also too old for getting upset of what a product cannot do!


----------



## cmillar

My current views on Dorico (...coming from being a pencil/paper trained composer, then Sibelius or Finale user...and from using one method or the other depending on the project):

1. Dorico is good if you're:
- an engraver or publisher, and strictly inputting pre-composed scores
- you have already done your own paper score, and are now going to put it into the computer
- the re-incarnation of Mozart (or you have perfect pitch)...and you can compose right into Dorico by using the computer keyboard without having to hear anything on the piano first

2. Dorico is not so good you're:
- wanting to use it to maybe 'replace' pencil/paper scores, and are trying to compose right into Dorico into a score template of your choosing

I just say that it's 'not so good' yet because it doesn't have a combination MIDI keyboard/computer keyboard/keypad entry system like Finale's 'Speedy Entry' or like Sibelius' 'choose pitch before duration' option.

Most composers (without Mozart's genetics or the gift of perfect pitch) need to 'noodle around' a bit on the piano before committing to some actual musical thoughts or series of pitches and harmonies, etc.

With a 'Speedy Entry'-like use of the MIDI keyboard/computer keyboard/keypad you are able to play around on the MIDI keyboard, come up with an idea, and then input the idea into Finale or Sibelius by not having to constantly take the cursor in and out of 'entry mode' by having to hit an escape key or other combination of keys to 'escape' from entry mode....because if you're stuck in 'entry mode', then you can mistakingly create a few minutes of MIDI-nonsense while 'noodling around' and trying to expand on your compositional ideas.

I'm sure I'm not alone in this complaint about Dorico.

I don't really care about it's ability to playback software instruments or sound libraries as well as my DAW of choice does, as I usually separate the two concepts into different types of musical projects.

If I have to create music using only sound librariesd, then I don't really need a full score or parts printed out for any players....its' just me!

I just like the idea of being able to compose into a software notation program and not have to re-copy it in all over again if I've done a score in pencil/paper.


----------



## Dewdman42

This information is not factual.

You can use a midi keyboard with Dorico, in combination with the QWERTY to get something similar to speedy entry. you select the duration from the QWERTY ( and as well you can select articulations, dynamics, slurs, etc), then you play the pitch on your midi keyboard and the note appears on the staff as desired. What we cannot yet do is real time playing...which as has been explained by Daniel, in order to interpret real time midi data into notes is non-trivial, so they haven't gotten there yet.

Also, you can play the midi keyboard while Dorico is not in note entry mode, and you will hear the sound of the most recently selected track.

So I think you can already do with Dorico what you are wishing for, you can noodle around on your keyboard, using whatever sound you intend to enter music on...and then when you're ready, go into Dorico's note entry mode, and use a combination of QWERTY and midi keyboards to enter the notes, similar, but not exactly, as Finale Speedy entry.

I actually do not think Dorico is at all designed mainly as an engraving tool. The playback engine is where it distinguishes itself, so in that light its most definitely geared towards both mockups and notation. Or more correctly said, a mockup tool that lets you think in terms of notes on staves instead of bars on a piano roll.

It also turns out to be a quite decent engraving tool, but if you are only interested in engraving then there is really not much point in looking beyond MuseScore, Finale and Sibelius, and a couple others perhaps. Dorico is being made by people that care about engraving so it will have strong engraving skills without question and perhaps some will argue that it will be better at automatically engraving a lot of stuff that requires manual intervention in other apps. Also the flow and layout concept is something new that provides a few interesting advantages not available in the other apps mentioned. But the playback sequencing is where it really goes into new territory compared to the others, which of course has nothing at all to do with engraving.


----------



## Dewdman42

Another thing I really like about the way you enter music into Dorico...I like that you can enter notes without a time signature and it just lets you enter all the music you want without concerns about filling up a bar or anything. Just enter the musical line without too much regards for time signature. Go add a time signature and all the notes will be moved through the following bars as needed. 

In fact at any time its always letting you edit or insert notes anywhere in the music and then it flows that music through the time signatures you have, it doesn't ever treat it as an error that you put too many notes in a bar or whatever. And it automatically does all the correct things, also in terms of tieing syncopated notes the correct way...as you enter the music. Change a time signature somewhere and all those previously syncopated notes will be recalculated to be properly notated. In general, its attempting to notate things correctly for you and does not expect you to have to think about notational correctness that much. You can just think about the musical lines you want and let the notation happen more or less automatically. You have to think about articulations, slurs, dynamics of course...as you should be.


----------



## ptram

I'm probably missing something, but I can already enter notes with the mouse. I don't use it, but it seems to me that this feature is there.

As for dragging word with the mouse in a word processor: on the Mac, all the word processors I use can do it.

Paolo


----------



## Dewdman42

yes you can enter notes with the mouse, you can't nudge them in any direction with the mouse after the fact.

what is the process involved in dragging a word in the word processor? Do you need to do some preliminary step to select the word in some special way before being able to drag it? When i open MS word, type a sentence, click on a word and try to drag it, it does not move, but rather the area I am dragging over becomes selected. And I'm glad it works that way! maybe there is a preference somewhere for other behavior, but I wouldn't like it.

There are oodles of text editors that do not support that feature. 

Just as there are some notational's that do support click and drag notes, this one does not.


----------



## peter5992

Dorico 2.1 was just released, with a long list of improvements and bug fixes, see Philip Rothman's blog below.

https://www.scoringnotes.com/reviews/dorico-2-1-released/


----------



## Dewdman42

Nice review, though I must say I’m not super thrilled to hear that aside from fixing a few little niggles, most work rolling forward will be for a future paid update for the quote “meaty” stuff desired by users.

I’m still happy about my purchase and will ride this train for a while, but users unhappy about missing real time recording, for example, or other “meaty” stuff may want to wait as I can easily see it taking several paid updates to get it up to where people’s expectations are.


----------



## Virtual Virgin

Let's face it. Dorico sucks. 2 years on it is a $550 beta. Its revolutionary playback system 
_doesn't even have a velocity lane yet_. They have been very slow at implementing rather basic features. If you look through the additions with each passing update it's quite sad (trill playback, oooh!). When it was released it didn't even have functioning repeats! At this rate it will take another 10 years before they do any integration with Cubase. What a disappointment.


----------



## altruistica

Virtual Virgin said:


> Let's face it. Dorico sucks. 2 years on it is a $550 beta. Its revolutionary playback system
> _doesn't even have a velocity lane yet_. They have been very slow at implementing rather basic features. If you look through the additions with each passing update it's quite sad (trill playback, oooh!). When it was released it didn't even have functioning repeats! At this rate it will take another 10 years before they do any integration with Cubase. What a disappointment.



Have you used it to write music and give it to musicians to play?

If so you'll realise how advanced it is in being able switch things around, assign parts etc. If you're viewing this solely from a view of 'how well can it integrate with my sample libraries' then I think you're going to be disappointed.


----------



## Vardaro

I bought it in the recent cross-grade deal. But the lack of a velocity lane _for selected notes, _absolutely vital for piano mock-ups, means I only use it for engraving. For sound output I use Sibelius 6.2 and Aria Maestoso (freeware!)


----------



## pinki

Companies releasing paid betas is the modern software disease..shame on Yamaha for allowing this. But hey it was the Sibelius team ...par for the course really..it took them five iterations to get a functioning Mac version and even then the UI was just insane with its drop down/drop down/drop down menus and Expressions and Techniques and...Gawd don't get me started. I know I know some people loved it. But I didn't. So.... Dorico...no way Jose.


----------



## Saxer

Some people say a notation app sucks when it's not able to make cross staff beaming or has collision between graphical objects. Dorico is very good in those parts. The engraving works really well and saves a lot of work. That's the main goal of a notation app: notating. Playback is for controlling.
So those final statements if something sucks or not are not very helpful if you don't see the whole picture. When you need best mockup features and notation as a secondary part use Logic.


----------



## Coincidental

I've recently moved across to it (long-time Finale user). I haven't had time to get completely familiar with it yet, but so far I'm very happy with the usability and the final result. For me the output is dots on a page, not a sound file (though Note Performer is doing a more than adequate job of allowing audio proofreading). Although there are still a few notable feature absences, the overall feeling of something that is being thoughtfully designed throughout for usability and excellent end results, rather than having a small core that is then added to with multiple (occasionally rickety) lean-tos, makes it a pleasure to use.

It's a real investment of time to get up to speed with a notation program so that it's just part of the process of writing music, rather than a hurdle to be got over in order to produce sheet music. Dorico definitely doesn't suck, though, and is very much fit for purpose as regards notation (though you may find some gaps, depending on what you're doing). The transparency of the development process is great, too. My main beefs are the lack of offline documentation and the limit to one installation (so I'm using MuseScore on my second machine for now).


----------



## jamwerks

Pdf manuals of Dorico are available!


----------



## Vik

I don't think it's as bad as you claim, VV, but I'm surprised that several of the composing/MIDI editing features I expected to see in Dorico because they exist in Sibelius aren't in there yet. Dorico still has many good features.


----------



## mducharme

I made the switch to Dorico from Sibelius several months ago. Aside from a few features that I would like for more avant-garde/modernist notation, I'm very happy with it, and would not go back. I originally started with Finale over a decade ago and moved to Sibelius in 2012. If you mostly do traditional notation, Dorico will save time over Finale or Sibelius, guaranteed, but you will need to keep in mind that there will be a period where it will take longer to do the same things only because you are not yet used to the workflow and the options. Any software, no matter how well designed, will always seem non-intuitive if you are used to a program that has similar functionality but implements it differently.

I bought Dorico at 1.0 but could not switch until the 2.0 release when they finally added features that I really needed to be able to work. It took me a few months of working in the software to get as efficient as I was in Sibelius, and until that point I had to really force myself to keep slogging away and working with it. Now I am more efficient than I was in Sibelius.


----------



## joebaggan

I switched from Sib to Dorico and am happy with it. It has a fast note input workflow and it's easier to move things around/edit in Dorico than Sib. It's also customizable so you can create your own key commands for everything, which is important because a keyboard based workflow is faster than using a mouse. It certainly doesn't have the Playback/Midi editing capability of a DAW, but it was primarily created as a Notation tool so does that job pretty well. Looking forward to seeing the Playback/Midi capabilities expanded or Cubase integration in future versions.


----------



## Prockamanisc

After 15 years, Sibelius is embedded in my DNA, and it took me about a week of using it non-stop and forcing myself to use Dorico 2 before I really got it. And then a few months later it took about another week of creating all sorts of key commands and customizations (to mimic the Sibelius that's in my DNA). As of now, I'm totally in the Dorico camp, and I don't miss Sibelius at all- especially because of the rhythm displacement feature that's saved me hours.


----------



## brek

Prockamanisc said:


> After 15 years, Sibelius is embedded in my DNA, and it took me about a week of using it non-stop and forcing myself to use Dorico 2 before I really got it. And then a few months later it took about another week of creating all sorts of key commands and customizations (to mimic the Sibelius that's in my DNA). As of now, I'm totally in the Dorico camp, and I don't miss Sibelius at all- especially because of the rhythm displacement feature that's saved me hours.



I finally opened the Dorico trial (and was greeted by a helpful notice that I had 7 hours remaining in my as-of-yet-unused 30 day trial). After an hour or two of struggling, basic note input started to click. I'm working on some music copying of handwritten scores (total fail with Photoscore) and I'm already getting through almost twice as many pages in the same time as Sibelius. So far I'm _only _inputting notes, so will be curious to see how much better articulations and dynamics are. 

One thing that's bugging me though... being unable to map the note input rhythm to a custom key command. Or am I missing it somewhere?? Would be great to get those on the number pad like Sibelius does.


----------



## mducharme

brek said:


> I finally opened the Dorico trial (and was greeted by a helpful notice that I had 7 hours remaining in my as-of-yet-unused 30 day trial). After an hour or two of struggling, basic note input started to click. I'm working on some music copying of handwritten scores (total fail with Photoscore) and I'm already getting through almost twice as many pages in the same time as Sibelius. So far I'm _only _inputting notes, so will be curious to see how much better articulations and dynamics are.
> 
> One thing that's bugging me though... being unable to map the note input rhythm to a custom key command. Or am I missing it somewhere?? Would be great to get those on the number pad like Sibelius does.


Edit->Preferences->Key Commands->Note Input->Set Note Duration->(choose duration)


----------



## Virtual Virgin

1,022 pages in the manual and only one instance of the term "inversion"? Seriously?

Every time I look into Dorico to see if it has a feature I would need, want, or expect I am let 
down. Engraving is all well and good, but as a a composition tool, this is ****.


----------



## Prockamanisc

Today I realized that I'm a much more capable composer because of the easy ability to extend and move note lengths.


----------



## joebaggan

Prockamanisc said:


> Today I realized that I'm a much more capable composer because of the easy ability to extend and move note lengths.



Yes, for me, the main advantage of Dorico is that easy ability to move/slide notes around, extend note length that won't muck up everything to the right, insert mode etc. And being able to create custom key commands for those things makes for a faster note input/editing workflow than some other products.


----------



## dexterjettser

I'm holding out for the Tantacrul video on Dorico before I pull the trigger. Still using Sibelius, but Dorico has a very tempting crossgrade educational price


----------



## Ben

dexterjettser said:


> I'm holding out for the Tantacrul video on Dorico before I pull the trigger. Still using Sibelius, but Dorico has a very tempting crossgrade educational price


I bougth Dorico 1 EDU crossgrade as soon as possible because I wanted to support the developers (I really enjoyed the development blog). I had no use for the software at this point because I needed at least chord symbols, but more important TAB support. Version 2 is really nice imo but still no TAB support so I decided to skip it. I plan to upgrade and move away from Sibelius as soon as I can write guitar tabs. Imo Sibelius is dead since v8: no relevant new features, but more crashes and clutter. Uninstalled the trial and move back to v7 waiting for Dorico 2.5 / 3.0


----------



## Vardaro

Well, it looks like graphic velocity control (vital for piano mockups) will not happen before v.3. So I continue with Sibelius 6.2, send the midi to Aria Maestosa for velocity and tempo tweaks, and leave my crossgrade Dorico2.2 in the drawer until the next €100 update...grrr!


----------



## Van

Best part of Dorico - Daniel Spreadbury will reply to your private Twitter (and other) messages directly. Met him at NAMM. He’s the real deal. And since he was Sibelius, which I used to love, that’s all I need. 

Done and done.


----------

