# Why pay for a notation programme when Musescore exists for free?



## pinki

I’ve been demoing Dorico, both Pro and Elements this month but I ended up going with Musescore 3.6 because it’s well, just so good.
The engraving features in the latest version means I’m not sure its worth paying for a notation programme anymore.…and Dorico… it’s VERY expensive for the Pro version that has the engraving I need. I do think Elements offers excellent value for money however.

I really wanted to love Dorico but in the end it’s too complex, it lacks simplicity and elegance. Musescore is just so easy and straightforward to use. I don’t need DAW features, I need flow.


----------



## tressie5

I tried Musescore. Unfortunately, I had to throw it back in the water because it didn't allow me to audition my scores with vst instruments. I did try to set up their Jack system but it didn't work. It might be better now, but because I had to jump through too many hoops for something that should be instinctively simple, I gave many others a looksee - Finale, Sibelius, Forte, Crescendo Masters, Notion... What I was also looking for was software that could "correct" my score into scales other than major and minor, like Arabic, Hindu, etc. Both Finale and Studio One came close, but since it's easier to correct my notes with various scales in Cubase, I use that.


----------



## JJP

pinki said:


> I’ve been demoing Dorico, both Pro and Elements this month but I ended up going with Musescore 3.6 because it’s well, just so good.


If it works for you, great! There are a lot of notation things that Musescore simply doesn't do that many people need, and the output doesn't look as nice as other programs to my professional eye. However, if Musescore works for you then use it, be happy, and make music!


----------



## Rudianos

pinki said:


> I’ve been demoing Dorico, both Pro and Elements this month but I ended up going with Musescore 3.6 because it’s well, just so good.
> The engraving features in the latest version means I’m not sure its worth paying for a notation programme anymore.…and Dorico… it’s VERY expensive for the Pro version that has the engraving I need. I do think Elements offers excellent value for money however.
> 
> I really wanted to love Dorico but in the end it’s too complex, it lacks simplicity and elegance. Musescore is just so easy and straightforward to use. I don’t need DAW features, I need flow.


Good questions - why we must pay. How does Musescore keep the lights on? The sheet music learning service? ... I use Finale ... and they have not altered much by way of content in a number of years. They are keeping up to date with Windows 4k etc... But yes its a program that is complex and I probably needed about 500 hours to get super familiar with it ... or at least enough to ask questions. Nothing beats a DAW for flow - but Finale gets me to see it in another way. I think their Hyperscribe is okay. Best to turn off the monitor and play into that without fear of imperfect rhythm creating interesting notation. Fix it on the back end.

This is why composers hire orchestrators and engravers I think.

Best wishes!


----------



## Getsumen

tressie5 said:


> I tried Musescore. Unfortunately, I had to throw it back in the water because it didn't allow me to audition my scores with vst instruments. I did try to set up their Jack system but it didn't work. It might be better now, but because I had to jump through too many hoops for something that should be instinctively simple, I gave many others a looksee - Finale, Sibelius, Forte, Crescendo Masters, Notion... What I was also looking for was software that could "correct" my score into scales other than major and minor, like Arabic, Hindu, etc. Both Finale and Studio One came close, but since it's easier to correct my notes with various scales in Cubase, I use that.


Luckily for you the Musescore Alpha for V4 which adds vst support just became public today.
Unfortunately, it's still quite buggy and loading kontakt frequently resulted in crashes or GUI messups and various other issues depending on the library. Some worked perfectly fine though


You should give it a shot and try it out








Our Progress on MuseScore 4 - First Alpha Released


EDIT: Since we made this announcement, we have made very significant improvements to MuseScore 4. For this reason, we no longer encourage you to test this…




musescore.org





I believe you need a github account to download. It's a huge update for musescore though. A proper looking mixer tab and some performance enhancements were quite nice


Rudianos said:


> Good questions - why we must pay. How does Musescore keep the lights on? The sheet music learning service? ... I use Finale ... and they have not altered much by way of content in a number of years. They are keeping up to date with Windows 4k etc... But yes its a program that is complex and I probably needed about 500 hours to get super familiar with it ... or at least enough to ask questions. Nothing beats a DAW for flow - but Finale gets me to see it in another way. I think their Hyperscribe is okay. Best to turn off the monitor and play into that without fear of imperfect rhythm creating interesting notation. Fix it on the back end.
> 
> This is why composers hire orchestrators and engravers I think.
> 
> Best wishes!


Yes the website is how they make their money. To download scores you need a PRO subscription, and now they have PRO+ and also some tutorial videos on learning instruments.
Musescore was purchased by a russian company which already owned Ultimate Guitar so I'm not sure if Musescore is profitable yet, but it has the support of a much larger company behind it. (Who also just recently purchased Audacity! They're expanding quite aggressively)


----------



## tressie5

@Getsumen - I went ahead and signed up to Github and downloaded Musecore 4 Alpha. It's very beautiful to the eyes, that's for sure. Looks completely different than 3. Less cluttered, more modern. I got it up and running right away. Unfortunately, like Finale, Sibelius and the rest, it still lacks a snap to key/scale function like Cubase, Ableton, Cakewalk, Studio One and Reaper. If I was a pianist like Barenboim, I wouldn't care. But I'm not.

Addendum: After some digging around, I just found out that Dorico has a snap to scale function. I'm gonna experiment with the trial anon.


----------



## pinki

JJP said:


> If it works for you, great! There are a lot of notation things that Musescore simply doesn't do that many people need, and the output doesn't look as nice as other programs to my professional eye. However, if Musescore works for you then use it, be happy, and make music!


I should have said I’m a Sibelius user for printing and a Notion user for vst playback. But after checking out 3.6, the engraving in Musescore is really good enough for professional scores. By that I mean the giving out of scores to musicians to play my work...maybe not the very top level of “engraving” proper.
As for vst playback, the big players like Dorico combine vst playback and professional engraving in one and that’s I guess what you pay the big bucks for.

Ive always been amazed by Notion for vst work…utterly stable and fast…but not a useable printout in any way.
So I’ve been using two programmes, one for printing, one for playback with music xml transfer. Dorico should be my next step…alas, “not my workflow’ is the best way to put it.

But...HOT NEWS..is Musescore 4 the holy grail?


----------



## Martin S

I’m looking forward to the new playback engine in Musescore 4 plus their free external library and how it sounds:

https://musescore.org/en/node/329505

Although it states in the above page that the library is 7,5 GB, they’ve mentioned elsewhere that it’s actually around 10 GB in size. Given that StaffPad was acquired by the MuseScore Group, it’s quite likely that some/all of the StaffPad playback engine is about to make its way into MuseScore 4.

So a brand new playback engine, a free proprietary lib (probably á la Noteperformer-ish) + VST support sounds good to me


----------



## eboats

It's a very good question. Dorico Pro is extremely overpriced for what it is, given that Musescore is free and provides great features. Over $500 to purchase Dorico and then paying $100 just for a 1/2 point upgrade every year ( e.g. 3.0 to 3.5 ). That adds up very quickly over the years. Steinberg has a marketing machine to sell/promote so can reach a lot of people, and also has Cubase so you'd think there would be some integration. But there's no DAW integration, and if they're not going to act on that advantage, there's an opportunity for someone else to come in and provide a true notation/DAW integration package.


----------



## RogiervG

we cannot answer the question... it's a personal take, and workflow thingy. 
Dorico works differently than Musescore, you like it or don't.. 
Pricepoint is also a personal thing, for if you find it overpriced or not.
Dorico is however becoming more and more a standard, next to sibelius (leader in the field still).
So from a professional perspective and standards (and upcoming standards).. it might be worth it to go Dorico instead of Musescore.


----------



## Bollen

pinki said:


> I’ve been demoing Dorico, both Pro and Elements this month but I ended up going with Musescore 3.6 because it’s well, just so good.
> The engraving features in the latest version means I’m not sure its worth paying for a notation programme anymore.…and Dorico… it’s VERY expensive for the Pro version that has the engraving I need. I do think Elements offers excellent value for money however.
> 
> I really wanted to love Dorico but in the end it’s too complex, it lacks simplicity and elegance. Musescore is just so easy and straightforward to use. I don’t need DAW features, I need flow.


Well, first of all I have to say I'm very jealous! I have been recommending Musescore over the paid alternatives for over a decade and I still do now. However, there are occasions when you need something Musescore cannot do. When I got onto Sibelius 15 years ago it was because I needed jazz articulations, this time around (2 years ago) I got into Dorico because I was tired of sorting out layouts (which Dorico does perfectly 70% of the time), working in a DAW (Dorico is getting there) and I needed the ability of doing quick extended technique articulations importing graphics and such.


----------



## pinki

RogiervG said:


> we cannot answer the question... it's a personal take, and workflow thingy.
> Dorico works differently than Musescore, you like it or don't..
> Pricepoint is also a personal thing, for if you find it overpriced or not.
> Dorico is however becoming more and more a standard, next to sibelius (leader in the field still).
> So from a professional perspective and standards (and upcoming standards).. it might be worth it to go Dorico instead of Musescore.


Yes I agree with the workflow thingy...and that there has to be a "pro" leader ..that used to be Sibelius and is no longer.
For me the workflow thingy in Dorico was torture. I felt like it was all about Dorico and not about me, the user. I was having to massively adjust my shape to fit into it. But as you say, it's personal.

I've just downloaded Musescore 4 (alpha)..it's a very beautiful design and the workflow is pretty much intact from 3.6. It has vst playback now (but the piano roll is not in the alpha). All in all..not even for a free product..this is a classy bit of software. I would pay $200 to $300 no question for it. But ..it's FREE. That's insane really.

EDIT: this is Tantacrul's design I believe: he delivers.


----------



## cet34f

Musescore is a notation program, not engraving program. There are only four engraving programs: SCORE, Sibelius, Finale and Dorico.


----------



## dcoscina

eboats said:


> It's a very good question. Dorico Pro is extremely overpriced for what it is, given that Musescore is free and provides great features. Over $500 to purchase Dorico and then paying $100 just for a 1/2 point upgrade every year ( e.g. 3.0 to 3.5 ). That adds up very quickly over the years. Steinberg has a marketing machine to sell/promote so can reach a lot of people, and also has Cubase so you'd think there would be some integration. But there's no DAW integration, and if they're not going to act on that advantage, there's an opportunity for someone else to come in and provide a true notation/DAW integration package.


Steinberg dropped the .5 Paid upgrades as of Dorico 4.


----------



## Getsumen

Martin S said:


> I’m looking forward to the new playback engine in Musescore 4 plus their free external library and how it sounds:
> 
> https://musescore.org/en/node/329505
> 
> Although it states in the above page that the library is 7,5 GB, they’ve mentioned elsewhere that it’s actually around 10 GB in size. Given that StaffPad was acquired by the MuseScore Group, it’s quite likely that some/all of the StaffPad playback engine is about to make its way into MuseScore 4.
> 
> So a brand new playback engine, a free proprietary lib (probably á la Noteperformer-ish) + VST support sounds good to me


You can try out Musescore 4 already btw. Their library isn't out yet though, it just shows a placeholder


----------



## Emanuel Fróes

It is a good question, since the "pro" apps go far beyond Muse Score BUT betray you somehow at the end of the line.


Did I say all?


But let me give here just 3 killer reasons to buy a notation app:


- Movie
- VST/Plugin
- The ability to "demand" since you are paying and since they tell you they are the greatest...


----------



## Martin S

Getsumen said:


> You can try out Musescore 4 already btw. Their library isn't out yet though, it just shows a placeholder


I’ve considered it, but I’d rather wait until the final release candidate is official (with the library and VSTi support).

Which actually brings me to another question - maybe you can clarify this? When they mention VST support, does this also include AU? I haven’t been able to find any info on this.I automatically assume AU is supported, too..


----------



## Quasar

Emanuel Fróes said:


> - Movie
> - VST/Plugin
> - The ability to "demand" since you are paying and since they tell you they are the greatest...


LOL. Since I'm a rank amateur 1) does not apply to me, and 3) couldn't be less relevant.

I tried Musescore a while back but the absence of capable VST integration killed it for me, too. If v4 really brings this functionality in a smooth, reliable way I will revisit.


----------



## mikrokosmiko

I'm more o less proficient with Musescore, but IMO it is very far away from Sibelius, my main notation program, yet. Many of my colleagues say that Dorico is the best one, but I have invested too much time getting to know Sibelius deeply. I use it only for engraving, don't care about how it sounds (although I have NotePerformer installed for showing demos to the musicians I write for)


----------



## pinki

Martin S said:


> I’ve considered it, but I’d rather wait until the final release candidate is official (with the library and VSTi support).
> 
> Which actually brings me to another question - maybe you can clarify this? When they mention VST support, does this also include AU? I haven’t been able to find any info on this.I automatically assume AU is supported, too..


Not a 100% but I think it'd VST3 only now with possibly VST2 later. No mention of AU in what I have read.


----------



## pinki

cet34f said:


> Musescore is a notation program, not engraving program. There are only four engraving programs: SCORE, Sibelius, Finale and Dorico.


Can you expand on that a bit? When we say 'engraving' in relation to notation software do we mean 'professional quality sheet music' or engraving as in: publishing for a book or published printed score? Because the definition of the former is not an absolute but I can imagine the definition of the latter is! (I know nothing about publishing)


----------



## cet34f

pinki said:


> Can you expand on that a bit? When we say 'engraving' in relation to notation software do we mean 'professional quality sheet music' or engraving as in: publishing for a book or published printed score? Because the definition of the former is not an absolute but I can imagine the definition of the latter is! (I know nothing about publishing)


It's more like "professional quality sheet music".

Wiki:
Plate engraving, the process engraving derives from, became obsolete around 1990. The term engraving is now used to refer to any high-quality method of drawing music notation, particularly on a computer ("computer engraving" or "computer setting") or by hand ("hand engraving").

There are numerous computer programs, known as scorewriters, designed for writing, organizing, editing, and printing music, though only a few produce results of a quality comparable to plate engraving.


----------



## joebaggan

dcoscina said:


> Steinberg dropped the .5 Paid upgrades as of Dorico 4.


You mean possibly after Dorico 4 but that remains to be seen. It was $100 to upgrade from 3.5 to 4.0. I'm definitely not paying that much for a .5 upgrade ( no matter what marketing spiel I hear from Steinberg ).


----------



## dcoscina

joebaggan said:


> You mean possibly after Dorico 4 but remains to be seen. It was $100 to upgrade from 3.5 to 4.0. I'm definitely not paying that much for a 1/2 point upgrade ( no matter what marketing spiel I hear from Steinberg ).


You won’t. They made that clear when they debuted Dorico 4. No more .5 paid updates


----------



## Cdnalsi

Long time user of Sibelius 6, and how they've ruined 7 I also switched to MuseScore and love it. Didn't know about the 4 Alpha, downloading it now.

But yeah, big fan of MuseScore here!


----------



## benwiggy

If you were to ask here "Why pay for Cubase/ProTools when free DAWs exist?", you'd be fighting the fires for months! 😆

Professional -- by which I mean commercial -- users will pay for three things: quality, speed, and service.

Speed and quality are partly determined by the skill of the operator and partly by the software: a veteran Finale user will have everything custom-configured to their satisfaction, and be able to work quickly. Something like Dorico has all kinds of productivity features for fast part preparation, revisions and variations (say in MT, where the score is being re-written mid-rehearsal.)

Notation apps' defaults for engraving are famously "always wrong, no matter what they're set to". Professional engravers will want the ability to configure the score exactly as they want: and if the result can't be achieved, then it's a deal-breaker. The curve and thickness of slurs; the distance apart of ... everything;

When time is money, if you're a multi-seat licence user, you can expect that the devs are going to take your concerns seriously.

MuseScore is making great improvements, and it's great to 'democratise' notation by making it free, particularly in education (as long as engraving is taught too!) But that doesn't mean that it has all the features that pros need. Arguably, none of the major notation apps has everything a pro might need.


----------



## mikehalloran

cet34f said:


> Musescore is a notation program, not engraving program. There are only four engraving programs: SCORE, Sibelius, Finale and Dorico.


That’s just silly. First off, SCORE is deader than Encore and has been for a long time. Many pros use and swear by LilyPond — and if 19th C engraving is your preference, well there it is (can’t stand it myself).

Back OT:

MuseScore is getting better but still isn’t ready for prime time, IMO. Maybe someday but the workflow is a PIA and the finished product looks like amateur hour — I’m sorry but it does. I’m a paid subscriber, BTW. Way too many issues with MusicXML to waste column inches. Bottom line: MuseScore is free and worth it.

Notion 6 might get better if Fender puts any resources into it. I use it for rendering MusicXML exported from Sibelius by clients but would never do a project in it.

Sibelius is still lagging way behind Dorico and Finale.

Dorico looks great but Dorico’s arbitrary workflow, not so much. If your needs fall within their restrictions, it can be ideal. Sometimes, mine do. At least one can’t make the common mistakes so often made by those posting in MuseScore.

Finale remains the only notation app where, if you can think it, you can do it IF you want to take the time to figure it out. Sometimes, that’s a tremendous amount of time. You can even get that really nice look of Dorico by using commercial templates or by following instructions laid out in old ScoringNotes articles.

My favorite down and dirty notation app is Encore. For quick choral or small band arrangements, nothing is faster. Unfortunately, printed slurs are so bad it’s unusable for publication and its MusicXML 1.3 export doesn’t handle lyrics or expressions. Being 32 bit, it can’t run over the last few MacOS versions and there are major bugs in the Win version. I have been told that the Encore code has been bought by the original developer and is coming back from the dead as a 64 bit app with MusicXML 3.0 import/export. If slurs and ties look good, I’ll start using it again for small work and export to Finale or Dorico for anything larger or for publication.

My 2¢


----------



## ptram

mikehalloran said:


> Dorico looks great but Dorico’s arbitrary workflow, not so much. If your needs fall within their restrictions, it can be ideal.


I would call them rules, rather than restrictions. You can change any microscopic detail of those rules. And if this is not enough, you can fine-adjust anything in Engrave mode.

Paolo


----------



## mikehalloran

ptram said:


> I would call them rules, rather than restrictions. You can change any microscopic detail of those rules. And if this is not enough, you can fine-adjust anything in Engrave mode.
> 
> Paolo


Dorico cannot do everything that Finale can. Daniel is the first to admit this.


----------



## Emanuel Fróes

I gave some thoughts on this here  and am happy that the thread goes a bit in this direction. However, I could atualize this vlog. MuseScore got better in the sense of "composing app". What nerves me is this: man, jus copy the best of each app. For example: Notion´s Kontakt capability + Logic´s capture recording and set recording to beat etc. Easier said than done, but some features are simple, principally regarding levels of annoyance and interface organization (looking into Sibelius!!!!)

____

*The distinction between notation and engraving is super important. Nice that cet34 mentioned it, I think people do not get many important nuances of the whole production proccess (and this reflects into bad apps, or bad use)

* BUt is there a formal definition for engraving vs notation softwares claimed by the developers themselves? In this sense, I would say Logic Pro is a composing and notation software, with some good publishing potential. This is why it is the only one THIS WAY that I know.

Regarding engraving: you have to master one or 3 apps, and still have an ipad with pencil to correct things. This is how I did. But I gave up, I focus on music, earn money, and pay people who are incredible patient for this - in case i need it. 


My background is handwriting manuscript, I finished my degree this way, but I can´t read my own score well - it looks like Betthoven. And I hate to write, just love to read, as Chopin did. See how close I am from these guys ))


Below some tint of Stravinsky (Rite of Spring, 1913)


----------



## DCPImages

I own several notation programs including Dorico, Notion, StaffPad and lesser known ones. I hardly ever use any of them, even though I want to. The barrier for me is note entry. Each program has a peculiar bias about how to enter notes, all of which seems to imply that they know better than the end user how best to structure their workflow. Of them all, perhaps the best program for composing is StaffPad. It has some excellent orchestral libraries (extra cost) and a very logical workflow. The barrier? StaffPad insists on long-hand note entry with Apple pencil or Surface pen followed by automatic handwriting recognition. Sounds good, but my hand simply does not work like their algorithm expects. I would go as far as saying that the system discriminates against people who do not have steady hands or who have 'doctor's writing'. This could all be solved if we had a choice of how to enter notes. I would use staffpad all the time if it had a simple palette for note length and I could simply tap the length and then tap the stave where I want the note to go. They do this for articulations, but not for note entry. Go figure! The wheels come off when you have to laboriously enter the note head, the stem and flags - it is very tiring to then have the algorithm reject your input. I would make a similar recommendation for Dorico: having an apple pen does not mean you should use it to write in longhand - just give the option to tap and drop notes and move on.

My thruppence worth!
DP


----------



## Daniel S.

mikehalloran said:


> Dorico cannot do everything that Finale can. Daniel is the first to admit this.


Indeed, but it can do pretty much everything important or commonly-needed that Finale can do, and it does it better, smarter, and faster – all while requiring less user intervention.

Finale can do great things and it can produce beautiful results in the hands of an experienced, patient user who has mastered its many complexities. But for the vast majority of the kinds of music that people are writing, Dorico is a much better choice, for a multitude of reasons. (I am not, of course, unbiased in my views.)


----------



## Emanuel Fróes

DCPImages said:


> I own several notation programs including Dorico, Notion, StaffPad and lesser known ones. I hardly ever use any of them, even though I want to. The barrier for me is note entry. Each program has a peculiar bias about how to enter notes, all of which seems to imply that they know better than the end user how best to structure their workflow. Of them all, perhaps the best program for composing is StaffPad. It has some excellent orchestral libraries (extra cost) and a very logical workflow. The barrier? StaffPad insists on long-hand note entry with Apple pencil or Surface pen followed by automatic handwriting recognition. Sounds good, but my hand simply does not work like their algorithm expects. I would go as far as saying that the system discriminates against people who do not have steady hands or who have 'doctor's writing'. This could all be solved if we had a choice of how to enter notes. I would use staffpad all the time if it had a simple palette for note length and I could simply tap the length and then tap the stave where I want the note to go. They do this for articulations, but not for note entry. Go figure! The wheels come off when you have to laboriously enter the note head, the stem and flags - it is very tiring to then have the algorithm reject your input. I would make a similar recommendation for Dorico: having an apple pen does not mean you should use it to write in longhand - just give the option to tap and drop notes and move on.
> 
> My thruppence worth!
> DP


exactly. For me too. I am happy with Musescore in this regard though, but still just trust Logic


----------



## joebaggan

Daniel S. said:


> Indeed, but it can do pretty much everything important or commonly-needed that Finale can do, and it does it better, smarter, and faster – all while requiring less user intervention.
> 
> Finale can do great things and it can produce beautiful results in the hands of an experienced, patient user who has mastered its many complexities. But for the vast majority of the kinds of music that people are writing, Dorico is a much better choice, for a multitude of reasons. (I am not, of course, unbiased in my views.)


In case anyone is unaware, the user Daniel S is a Steinberg employee. 

This is supposed to be an independent forum with independent views so it's not cool to see a company representative plugging his own product here. You have your own forum to do that. Obviously there's inherent bias to sell a product when a company employee says their product is "a much better choice" than the competition.


----------



## d.healey

joebaggan said:


> In case anyone is unaware, the user Daniel S is a Steinberg employee.
> 
> This is supposed to be an independent forum with independent views so it's not cool to see a company representative plugging his own product here. You have your own forum to do that. Obviously there's inherent bias to sell a product when a company employee says their product is "a much better choice" than the competition.


I don't mind Daniel (or any company employee) chipping in to a discussion, but I'd like them to make it clear that they are a paid representative. @Daniel S. Please add a profile pic and some info in your signature.


----------



## Jdiggity1

joebaggan said:


> In case anyone is unaware, the user Daniel S is a Steinberg employee.
> 
> This is supposed to be an independent forum with independent views so it's not cool to see a company representative plugging his own product here. You have your own forum to do that. Obviously there's inherent bias to sell a product when a company employee says their product is "a much better choice" than the competition.


More than just a Steinberg employee, Daniel is the product marketing manager for Dorico, and former product manager for Sibelius, and as a long-time reader of his blogs and articles, I for one, am thrilled to have him here.
He is absolutely welcome to participate in the forums here just as any other member is.

I agree with D.Healey above though, that adding a signature to his profile would help with transparency.


----------



## Jdiggity1

There. All fixed.
Thanks @Daniel S.


----------



## ssnowe

joebaggan said:


> In case anyone is unaware, the user Daniel S is a Steinberg employee.
> 
> This is supposed to be an independent forum with independent views so it's not cool to see a company representative plugging his own product here. You have your own forum to do that. Obviously there's inherent bias to sell a product when a company employee says their product is "a much better choice" than the competition.


Daniel is THE reason I purchased Dorico.

Most other companies barely respond to emails, customer concerns or enhancement requests. When I saw how Daniel jumps right in whenever there is a Dorico question or issue there was no way I couldn't purchase Dorico.

Way to go Daniel!


----------



## pinki

joebaggan said:


> This is supposed to be an independent forum with independent views


Is it? According to who? Seems to me nobody but you thinks Daniel isn’t welcome here…


----------



## joebaggan

pinki said:


> Is it? According to who? Seems to me nobody but you thinks Daniel isn’t welcome here…


Independent forum means a forum where Steinberg employees ( or any employee plugging their product ) are not pitching their product with comments like "Dorico is a much better choice" than the competition. In fact, they are being paid to promote a product and dismiss the competition. If they want to do that, they should be paying for advertising here ( like other companies do in the sidebars and headers of these pages ). It's very clear from the ads on these pages that they are marketing/promotional material.


----------



## JJP

There are a lot of developers on this forum. They have made some valuable contributions over the years. Daniel has identified himself as product manager for Dorico. I welcome his input and expertise. (Perhaps initially he should have made that clearer, but it’s fixed now.) 

I’ve made it clear that I work as an orchestrator and music preparation professional. I hope that doesn’t mean that I can’t take part in conversations about those topics because I’d be seen as promoting my own work and dismissing others.

That said, I do dismiss a few people around here: Chillbot, Jdiggity, John Graham, and Mike Green — especially Mike Green. That guy claps on one and three and acts like he owns the place.


----------



## Noeticus

This is rather nice...


----------



## blaggins

I am shocked that anyone on here is shocked to learn that @Daniel S. is a part of the Dorico team. This is the clue to point you in that direction if you needed it:



> (I am not, of course, unbiased in my views.)


He has always been eminently clear in his affiliation and is also kind of the "PM of your dreams" if you care about the Dorico product at all. I wish all my products had their own Daniel S running around on this forum!


----------



## pefra

blaggins said:


> I wish all my products had their own Daniel S running around on this forum!


What would we end up with? A member asks a question and the first answer comes from a PM (as has happened in another thread). Next comes the PM from the competitor who says, the PM from the other competitor is wrong, because the other product is definitely better, because it has THIS and Dorico/Sibelius/Finale/Whatever has NOT. Etc. etc. blah blah. Then comes...

As I tried to point out there IS a small but important line that separates support from marketing. To make things worse let me also point out that good support *can* also be good marketing 

So in the end everybody has to decide what he is willing to accept. It still makes me feel uneasy when someone puts a question and the very first answer comes from a PM. But that's just me and other members may be fine with this. In fact obviously they actually are.

So...


----------



## Emanuel Fróes

The main reason would be VSTs (Dorico) and automation (Notion 6).

Que question is , why use such apps when Logic Pro is a daw with score editor


----------



## pefra

Emanuel Fróes said:


> Que question is , why use such apps when Logic Pro is a daw with score editor


If someone wants a DAW with Notation (Logic, Cubase, DP) or Notation with parts of a DAW (Dorico) or Notation with integrated connection to a DAW (Notion) that's one thing. The difference in using some kind of a "pure" Notation software lies in that it separates you from the DAW. To me (like in just me) that's a good thing, because I'm absolutely tired of drawing lines for control changes in a DAW (see other thread). The easier the process of composing the better.

That's why I want to work with notation. It replaces pencil and paper - not a recording studio. It kicks me into a different mood. And I can still move into my recording studio (think DAW) whenever I want.

Have fun.


----------



## mikehalloran

The only “pure notation” app I know is pen (pencil if making dittos), ink and paper. I was using that for 21 years before DMCS, my first notation app and it worked fine. That said…

The perfect meld of notation and DAW does not exist though marketing departments would have you believe otherwise.

Working professionals like the pro apps for the reasons that benwiggy stated plus we have direct access to Support—and it’s pretty good. The pro apps are Finale, Sibelius and Dorico. I have current licenses for others including Overture, Encore and Notion and can use LilyPond when I must. No, I do not consider the limited notation functionality in Logic or Digital Performer advanced enough to consider either a notation app but they both can export via MusicXML 3.0. 

Those expecting MuseScore to add VST2 support are likely to be disappointed. Steinberg, by no longer allowing new VST2 plug-ins and VIs, is trying to force everyone to VST3. No reason for the Mac version to support AU unless MuseScore wants it—again, prepare to be disappointed. It’s going to take awhile before this all shakes out but not to worry. Thousands of threads on as many boards are going to discuss this to death so everyone who wants to will have their chance to weigh in. Also, there are other “standards” being proposed. I will continue to use what works for me as it’s available.

By mentioning Daniel, it was I who invited Mr. Spreadbury to join the discussion and I’m glad he did. Despite his expected enthusiasm, I don’t use Dorico as much as I do Finale because of certain workflow issues that are not germane to this discussion but it is good and support is excellent.

I consider MuseScore’s workflow to be horrible. If improved in v.4, I might start using it but everyone is talking about the new fonts and VSTs so I’m not getting my hopes up. Some of my clients use it so I know it pretty well. Some of its functionality requires a subscription which I pay—that’s not “free”, boys and girls.


----------



## Noeticus

MuseScore 4 looks VERY promising!


----------



## dcoscina

MuseScore is very impressive but I’m not abandoning Dorico 4. I’ve produced several commissioned works on it and it just keeps getting better.


----------



## dylanmixer

The question here is really "Why use a professional tool instead of a free one?". Well, there's nothing wrong with free software. There are great free options. Reaper vs Cubase. Microsoft Word vs Word Pad. Adobe Premiere vs Davinci. Pretty much anything vs Photoshop.

The answer is always "Because I'm a professional." The free software will never go the extra mile, it won't have every single feature, it won't be updated regularly, you won't have customer service to fix issues, etc. Free software = unpaid employees. Now if my job depended on a piece of software not only working but also fill my every need, would I put my hands in the work of paid employees or unpaid employees?

MuseScore is great. But it will never do everything, and you'll never be able to rely on support. You don't have the "my job depends on this working" confidence. And the "notation vs. engraving" argument, as well as @Daniel S. appearing as soon as you shake him like a genie, perfectly encapsulates that.

Daniel and the Dorico team are great. One post on the Steinberg Forums and they were swarming within an hour to help.


----------



## pinki

dylanmixer said:


> The question here is really "Why use a professional tool instead of a free one?". Well, there's nothing wrong with free software. There are great free options. Reaper vs Cubase. Microsoft Word vs Word Pad. Adobe Premiere vs Davinci. Pretty much anything vs Photoshop.
> 
> The answer is always "Because I'm a professional." The free software will never go the extra mile, it won't have every single feature, it won't be updated regularly, you won't have customer service to fix issues, etc. Free software = unpaid employees. Now if my job depended on a piece of software not only working but also fill my every need, would I put my hands in the work of paid employees or unpaid employees?
> 
> MuseScore is great. But it will never do everything, and you'll never be able to rely on support. You don't have the "my job depends on this working" confidence. And the "notation vs. engraving" argument, as well as @Daniel S. appearing as soon as you shake him like a genie, perfectly encapsulates that.
> 
> Daniel and the Dorico team are great. One post on the Steinberg Forums and they were swarming within an hour to help.


Yes I think this is the answer to the the question really. Well put.


----------



## pefra

dylanmixer said:


> There are great free options. Reaper vs Cubase.


Reaper is not free.


----------



## Getsumen

dylanmixer said:


> The question here is really "Why use a professional tool instead of a free one?". Well, there's nothing wrong with free software. There are great free options. Reaper vs Cubase. Microsoft Word vs Word Pad. Adobe Premiere vs Davinci. Pretty much anything vs Photoshop.
> 
> The answer is always "Because I'm a professional." The free software will never go the extra mile, it won't have every single feature, it won't be updated regularly, you won't have customer service to fix issues, etc. Free software = unpaid employees. Now if my job depended on a piece of software not only working but also fill my every need, would I put my hands in the work of paid employees or unpaid employees?
> 
> MuseScore is great. But it will never do everything, and you'll never be able to rely on support. You don't have the "my job depends on this working" confidence. And the "notation vs. engraving" argument, as well as @Daniel S. appearing as soon as you shake him like a genie, perfectly encapsulates that.
> 
> Daniel and the Dorico team are great. One post on the Steinberg Forums and they were swarming within an hour to help.


I think you have a misconception here.... Musescore employees are paid. They have a support staff and have a vested interest in Musescore working because well, financially if the product doesn't work, they make less money off of it. Musescore is probably the main money maker for Musegroup. Just because they don't have a high presence here doesn't mean they're not active.


----------



## d.healey

"Free software" refers to software that you are free to do certain things with, it does not mean non-commercial - although a lot of free software is gratis.

This website runs on free software, as does 99% of the internet - are you too professional to use the internet?

I would not trust or rely on software that I had no control over. If there's a bug in a program that is critical to my work I want to know that even if the developer won't fix it I can do it myself or hire someone else to. You can't do that with any non-free program.

All complicated software has bugs and vulnerabilities, but with free software you can see and fix them yourself. It's also nearly impossible for developers to include malicious features in free software, if they try and it's discovered you can remove it. Like Musescore or audacity adding telemetry (looking at you Muse Group).

I'm sure you can think of proprietary software you use that has some annoying bug, anti feature, or limitation, which you'd love to have fixed but know it never will be because the developer has ignored it for years and ignores your pleadings (looking at you Native Instruments).

I'm too professional to use proprietary software.


----------



## pefra

d.healey said:


> It's also nearly impossible for developers to include malicious features in free software, if they try and it's discovered you can remove it. Like Musescore or audacity adding telemetry (looking at you Muse Group).


The new MuseHub is not open source


----------



## d.healey

pefra said:


> The new MuseHub is not open source


I know, and I'm not using it. I've expressed my disappointment about it on the Musescore forum and the YouTube video. However I expected all along that it wouldn't be.


----------



## pefra

T.b.h it can't be, MuseGroup is integrating StaffPad (or at least the sounds) into MuseScore, and SP is not open. But Musescore 3.6 already gave me the hint that they are on a mission with this. I had a lengthy discussion on their forum some time ago, and when I repeated my facts some weeks ago Tantacrul told me to no longer be a nuisance and stop posting. Well, Sibelius, Finale, and Dorico, they are not bad AT ALL, me thinks.


----------



## d.healey

From what I understand MuseGroup owns StaffPad, so they could release the sounds and playback system under a free-er license if they wanted to. 

I don't really care about sounds in Musescore, I use it for writing, when I want a performance I move to a DAW. And anyway I should be able to load my own plugins into Musescore. I remember using Musescore 0.9 over a decade ago, we only had a piano sound, it was a great time


----------



## Noeticus

Another MuseScore 4 demo...


----------



## dylanmixer

Getsumen said:


> I think you have a misconception here.... Musescore employees are paid. They have a support staff and have a vested interest in Musescore working because well, financially if the product doesn't work, they make less money off of it. Musescore is probably the main money maker for Musegroup. Just because they don't have a high presence here doesn't mean they're not active.


How does Musescore make money? Genuine question.


----------



## d.healey

dylanmixer said:


> How does Musescore make money? Genuine question.


Through Musescore.com - also Musescore is part of MuseGroup which is a commercial company with multiple income streams.


----------



## Getsumen

^
Musescore (the software) does not make money directly, but through Musescore.com it profits from multiple subscription services.


----------



## thesteelydane

d.healey said:


> From what I understand MuseGroup owns StaffPad, so they could release the sounds


I don't think they own the sounds though, they are special StaffPad versions of libraries by some of the big devs (Spitfire, Cinesamples, Orchestra Tools). It's the quality of the sounds combined with the engine, and above all working as if on pen and paper that makes it such an incredible app. But that's a different subject.


----------



## d.healey

thesteelydane said:


> I don't think they own the sounds though, they are special StaffPad versions of libraries by some of the big devs (Spitfire, Cinesamples, Orchestra Tools). It's the quality of the sounds combined with the engine, and above all working as if on pen and paper that makes it such an incredible app. But that's a different subject.


Ah that makes sense, I'm not familiar with the sound library, I thought it was their own creation.


----------



## rsg22

d.healey said:


> Ah that makes sense, I'm not familiar with the sound library, I thought it was their own creation.


Staffpad's stock/OEM library is _probably_ owned by Muse Group? But yeah the many 3rd party Staffpad libraries from Cine, OT, Spitfire, etc. - I'm assuming they'd have to do new licensing agreements to include those with Musescore.


----------



## Noeticus

Another video...

About 33 minutes into the video, he shows a Spitfire VST being used in the MuseScore 4 (Beta).


----------



## Noeticus

Another MuseSound Test - Woodwinds - on MuseScore 4 (Beta)


----------



## Noeticus

I find this to be quite impressive...


----------



## Noeticus

And this as well...


----------



## Emanuel Fróes

mikehalloran said:


> The only “pure notation” app I know is pen (pencil if making dittos), ink and paper. I was using that for 21 years before DMCS, my first notation app and it worked fine. That said…
> 
> The perfect meld of notation and DAW does not exist though marketing departments would have you believe otherwise.
> 
> Working professionals like the pro apps for the reasons that benwiggy stated plus we have direct access to Support—and it’s pretty good. The pro apps are Finale, Sibelius and Dorico. I have current licenses for others including Overture, Encore and Notion and can use LilyPond when I must. No, I do not consider the limited notation functionality in Logic or Digital Performer advanced enough to consider either a notation app but they both can export via MusicXML 3.0.
> 
> Those expecting MuseScore to add VST2 support are likely to be disappointed. Steinberg, by no longer allowing new VST2 plug-ins and VIs, is trying to force everyone to VST3. No reason for the Mac version to support AU unless MuseScore wants it—again, prepare to be disappointed. It’s going to take awhile before this all shakes out but not to worry. Thousands of threads on as many boards are going to discuss this to death so everyone who wants to will have their chance to weigh in. Also, there are other “standards” being proposed. I will continue to use what works for me as it’s available.
> 
> By mentioning Daniel, it was I who invited Mr. Spreadbury to join the discussion and I’m glad he did. Despite his expected enthusiasm, I don’t use Dorico as much as I do Finale because of certain workflow issues that are not germane to this discussion but it is good and support is excellent.
> 
> I consider MuseScore’s workflow to be horrible. If improved in v.4, I might start using it but everyone is talking about the new fonts and VSTs so I’m not getting my hopes up. Some of my clients use it so I know it pretty well. Some of its functionality requires a subscription which I pay—that’s not “free”, boys and girls.


Here is the point: to compose we need a composing app. THe notation app gives you advantages in engraving, but problems when thinking like a composer of today (not of the Mozart era..)


Most notation apps are not composing apps, but engraving apps. I resume this way


Can you compose with them? Yes. THere are many ways of composinng, you can clatch the hands and record on iphone, send to master enginner etc...

But you said the most important: only pen and paper are 100% safe for now. THe issue is: de facto computers can make it 150%, if you have electric energy.


----------



## Emanuel Fróes

Noeticus said:


> I find this to be quite impressive...



You mean the layout is impressive?


----------



## Daniel S.

Emanuel Fróes said:


> Most notation apps are not composing apps, but engraving apps.


I think that has historically been true, but it's something we've specifically tried to address with Dorico. Apps like Sibelius and Finale (and MuseScore) are great for inputting existing music and producing great-looking sheet music, but they are not great environments for experimenting with musical ideas – at least not when compared to other more flexible solutions like MIDI sequencers. The tired old analogy that I always use is that those apps are to composition what the typewriter is to novel-writing: great for making a fair copy of something you've already taken more or less to completion, but not great for taking it from initial idea all the way to completion.

By contrast, we have tried to make Dorico less like a typewriter, and more like a word processor, with tools for moving, adapting, inserting, cutting and transforming musical material in sufficiently flexible ways that there is practically no decision you will make as part of your creative process that you cannot easily make again at any time, and with as small a penalty as possible for doing so.

Dorico's fundamental approach to modeling music notation is much closer to how a sequencer thinks about music than how a notation program thinks about it. Music is arranged in streams of arbitrary length, onto which meter, bars, etc. can be imposed: other apps have completely the opposite approach, with bars as immutable containers into which only items that are smaller can be stored. This means that Dorico gives you the same flexibility to move music around freely as a sequencer, and because the notation is derived algorithmically from the underlying MIDI-like representation, it can be rewritten to match the new metrical position instantly and automatically. Try that kind of operation in Sibelius, Finale or MuseScore and you will find yourself with a lot of rhythmic proof-reading to do – if they can even do the operation in the first place, because it would result in a tuplet crossing a barline, say.

We've also put a lot of time into tools to support the compositional process: not only simple tools for accomplishing musical logistics like swapping material between staves, reducing/exploding, but also tools to support musical creativity, like really well integrated tools for melodic and rhythmic transformations (not using plug-ins that are limited in what they can reasonably accomplish), and to create chord symbols from existing music, etc., etc.

I won't go on at great length since I know some people in the community find posts from app developers to be too "sales-y", but I just wanted to point out that the conception that music notation apps are only good for engraving and not for composing is something that we set out to change when we started to build Dorico, and if that's something that interests you, you should give it a try.


----------



## d.healey

Daniel S. said:


> The tired old analogy that I always use is that those apps are to composition what the typewriter is to novel-writing


They're not really though. Finale, Sibelius, Overture, Musescore, and the rest are not anything like a typewriter - and let's not forget music typewriters do exist.

All those apps are more like word processors. You can edit, delete, undo, move stuff around, save multiple versions, etc. etc. Whether or not they are composition programs depends on the workflow of the individual.

As far as my own workflow is concerned I don't have a composition program as such. The composing happens in my head with the aid of a piano/VI. The software (Musescore in my case) is a tool for recording those ideas and organizing them. If I want to create a performance I'll switch to a DAW and (usually) play in the parts.


----------



## Daniel S.

d.healey said:


> All those apps are more like word processors. You can edit, delete, undo, move stuff around, save multiple versions, etc. etc. Whether or not they are composition programs depends on the workflow of the individual.


I think that's true to a point, of course. But consider that you want to insert one or two notes into an existing melody or rhythmic pattern. Yes, in all of those apps you can do it by cutting the following music to the clipboard, adding the notes you want to add, then pasting the music back in again, but assuming the pasted music is now falling differently relative to the prevailing meter, you may have a lot of rhythmic rewriting to do manually. If inserting, say, a letter into a misspelled word in a word processor caused everything to shuffle around such that now, say, the last letter of each line now moves to the start of the next regardless of whether or not that makes sense, we wouldn't think of word processors as being especially useful, and there are lots of analogous situations like that in notation software. <sales>(But not in Dorico.)</sales>


----------



## Noeticus

Emanuel Fróes said:


> You mean the layout is impressive?


I really like the music, and I also like what MuseScore 4 offers. 

And given that MuseScore 4 is free... Wow!


----------



## pefra

Daniel S. said:


> <sales>(But not in Dorico.)</sales>


Right. It is


----------



## Noeticus

Another nice video...


----------



## pefra

Daniel S. said:


> I won't go on at great length since I know some people in the community find posts from app developers to be too "sales-y"...



Daniel,
not in general, as I have very clearly expressed in my post. But when "some people" ask _other members_ about their experience (quote: Are there any Sibelius users here that still prefer Sibelius after trying Dorico?) I wouldn't expect the PM for Dorico to jump in at the very next post to explain at length what Dorico has over Sib/Fin. You never bothered to react to my post directly but you do here now, in a different thread...

And yes, the line between support and sales / marketing may be thin. But should be there.

Fine


----------



## Noeticus




----------



## joebaggan

pefra said:


> Daniel,
> not in general, as I have very clearly expressed in my post. But when "some people" ask _other members_ about their experience (quote: Are there any Sibelius users here that still prefer Sibelius after trying Dorico?) I wouldn't expect the PM for Dorico to jump in at the very next post to explain at length what Dorico has over Sib/Fin. You never bothered to react to my post directly but you do here now, in a different thread...
> 
> And yes, the line between support and sales / marketing may be thin. But should be there.
> 
> Fine


Yes, it's disconcerting that a certain Sales rep from Steinberg keeps jumping in and promoting his product over the competition on an independent forum like this. If he wants to do that on the Steinberg forum, great, but it doesn't belong here ( unless he wants to pay for an advertisement like what you see in the forum sidebars ). Whatever the merits of the argument, the guy is paying his mortgage and making a living selling Steinberg products so is never going to be an independent, objective voice in this forum.


----------



## Daniel S.

I'm not a sales rep, for what it's worth: I'm Dorico's product manager (as it says below my name on each of my posts). It's also OK to use my name, if you like!

It's not my intention to overstep when I post here. I clearly identify myself, and I normally make clear in my posts that I'm hardly impartial, in case anybody is in any doubt. I also try to be helpful and to answer questions here, where my expertise (such as it is) can add value.


----------



## Noeticus

Daniel S. said:


> I'm not a sales rep, for what it's worth: I'm Dorico's product manager (as it says below my name on each of my posts). It's also OK to use my name, if you like!
> 
> It's not my intention to overstep when I post here. I clearly identify myself, and I normally make clear in my posts that I'm hardly impartial, in case anybody is in any doubt. I also try to be helpful and to answer questions here, where my expertise (such as it is) can add value.


Hello Daniel,

I think you do indeed add value to this forum. And thanks for posting in this thread.

You write in a manner that is rather informative.


----------



## Ivan Duch

I'm grateful that developers take their time to receive feedback on a forum like this. I've seen Daniel taking note of users' negative feedback and criticism. From what I've seen he's here to improve Dorico and explain misunderstandings about the software. Of course, that will sell, but it sells because it's the kind of behavior and commitment one hopes developers have with their products.

I would imagine Avid developers are welcome to post, and I've seen Tantacrul posting as well.


----------



## PhilA

joebaggan said:


> Yes, it's disconcerting that a certain Sales rep from Steinberg keeps jumping in and promoting his product over the competition on an independent forum like this. If he wants to do that on the Steinberg forum, great, but it doesn't belong here ( unless he wants to pay for an advertisement like what you see in the forum sidebars ). Whatever the merits of the argument, the guy is paying his mortgage and making a living selling Steinberg products so is never going to be an independent, objective voice in this forum.


Product manager does not equal sales person. For what it’s worth I was unaware of Daniels exemplary support input when I swapped from Finale to Dorico. Now that I have made that switch I’m frequently stunned at the level of honest (he never Denys a failing in Dorico, but will take it on board to improve) and high quality input and support he provides.


----------



## Lannister

People complaining about the the guy behind Sibelius, and more recently Dorico, posting here, engaging with people, hearing what users have to say and expressing their opinions on their products directly with their users, should spend more time encouraging the same from the developers of the software THEY use, than whining.


----------



## Jett Hitt

I am personally impressed and grateful for @Daniel S. being here. I have always found him to be super helpful, courteous, and informative, and his feathers ruffle only slightly. It’s a given that he’s in the Dorico camp. Who cares? When was the last time you saw a rep from Logic or Cubase or Finale here? We’re fortunate to have him. 

I do hope, however, that Musescore 4 puts some serious heat on him and his team. Playback was the obvious frontier, and the folks at Dorico totally missed that. If you’re gonna be a composition app and not just a notation app, then we’re gonna need the full Monty. I’ve been content to let Dorico lie fallow on my hard drive because I have StaffPad, and I may soon have an equivalent desktop app with a really nice font in Musescore. Then the onus will be on Daniel to make Dorico more attractive. Dorico has lots more shiny bells and whistles than Musescore, but the VST stuff needs rethinking. It’s just too convoluted and a ridiculous pain in the ass. Assigning a VST and deploying some keyswitches just shouldn’t be so cumbersome. (At this point Daniel’s feathers are slightly ruffled because I tell him this every chance I get.) @Tantacrul is bringing the heat, and Dorico is going to need to answer.


----------



## ssnowe

Agreed about using vsts with Dorico, way too difficult. I’m a software engineer during the day, working with machine learning and petabytes of data.

I know how to create Dorico expression maps, have written Python scripts to automate expression map xml generation, etc.

But you know what, I just don’t want to work that hard. With Staffpad I just sit down and compose, flip the sounds around to my liking and move on with my music. And it sounds really really good.

I want the same from Dorico, charge me if you need to (I already paid a lot to Staffpad for their libraries and don’t really have an issue with it) but give me good, high quality sound libraries to work with out of the box.

If I want to play the piano I don’t find it very useful if you hand me some lumber, wires for the strings and plastic for the keys and tell me to build the piano myself.


----------



## ssnowe

And continuing on, do you know why I prefer to use a notation program versus a piano roll.

I can look at a notation program score for multiple instruments and see what is going on immediately. A music score is a language unto itself, the piano roll just an excel spreadsheet with no heart or soul.

With a piano roll layout I need to click, expand, twist, shimmy and move all over the place to get a feel for what’s going on.

However, for me personally the notation program doesn’t have to be able to print out a flawless score, get me in the ballpark and I’m good. If Musescore can give me that with great sounds than it becomes my new composition tool and I will simply move on from Logic, Cubase, Reaper and Dorico.


----------



## Jett Hitt

Dead on the money @ssnowe. There is an aspect of composition that is very visual, and that is totally lost with the piano roll. When one of my students brings a piece to his/her lesson, I can spot lots of the problems before I even think about what it sounds like. This conversation with the student often goes like this: "The basses have been playing whole notes for 143 measures. The flute is playing in its lowest register against three trumpets. The oboe played three notes for the entire piece, and he got paid the same as the 1st violin who never had a rest and played an octave above the staff for the entire piece."

Not being able to see the music is a serious handicap.


----------



## Wensleydale

Even if the Steinberg employee posting here were someone we had never heard of, I would be keen to see what they have to say (while also on the alert for misinformation). But this is _Daniel Spreadbury_, FFS. There aren’t many people on the planet who know more about notation software in general, and Dorico in particular, than he does. The last thing we should be doing is discouraging him from posting here, as long as he makes it clear that he has a vested interest. Which he does.


----------



## GainStaging

I like Dorico and am waiting for sale


----------



## Daryl

joebaggan said:


> Yes, it's disconcerting that a certain Sales rep from Steinberg keeps jumping in and promoting his product over the competition on an independent forum like this. If he wants to do that on the Steinberg forum, great, but it doesn't belong here ( unless he wants to pay for an advertisement like what you see in the forum sidebars ). Whatever the merits of the argument, the guy is paying his mortgage and making a living selling Steinberg products so is never going to be an independent, objective voice in this forum.


He's not a sales rep. Have you not realised that by now?


----------



## mducharme

Jett Hitt said:


> Playback was the obvious frontier, and the folks at Dorico totally missed that.


There are many professional users (almost none of whom use this forum) who would disagree and claim that any time spent on playback is a complete waste of time, that the playback of a notation program does not matter at all and that only the engraving features matter. They may even get upset when notation software vendors spend anytime at all improving playback, because they consider it time wasted that could be spent improving engraving. I am not one of those users myself, but still, there is a balance in terms of demand between the various factions. "Playback was the obvious frontier" might be true for VI-control users, and many others, but is certainly not true of all users.


----------



## GainStaging

mducharme said:


> playback


I'm a noob to notation software. By playback, do people mean playing the score as sound? Like using space bar to start and pause playback, select playback start point, etc.? Or is it something else like the ability to set up and play articulations, dynamics, expressions, etc.?


----------



## mducharme

GainStaging said:


> Or is it something else like the ability to set up and play articulations, dynamics, expressions, etc.?


Playback is technically just playing the score as sound, but that is relatively simple, if you don't care about whether it really sounds like it actually would if played by a real ensemble. So, to most people, it means also handling articulations, dynamics, etc.. When I write about the sizable contingent of users who don't care at all about playback, most of those would like to hear the actual pitches but don't care about anything else, even if the instruments themselves sound horrible. From their perspective, they are going to have a live ensemble play their piece, so they don't need to have any realism at all in the mockup, and only use playback to check for wrong notes and ignore it otherwise.


----------



## GainStaging

mducharme said:


> Playback is technically just playing the score as sound, but that is relatively simple, if you don't care about whether it really sounds like it actually would if played by a real ensemble. So, to most people, it means also handling articulations, dynamics, etc.. When I write about the sizable contingent of users who don't care at all about playback, most of those would like to hear the actual pitches but don't care about anything else, even if the instruments themselves sound horrible. From their perspective, they are going to have a live ensemble play their piece, so they don't need to have any realism at all in the mockup, and only use playback to check for wrong notes and ignore it otherwise.


Thanks for the clear explanation, Michael.

I also don't expect notation softwares to sound "finished" as long as the general loudness, pitch, and quantization of notes are correct. I expect to need a DAW to "finish" the sounds after notating. I was just worried maybe there is something wrong with Dorico's playback function that I didn't notice because I want to buy it soon.


----------



## dcoscina

Daniel S. said:


> I'm not a sales rep, for what it's worth: I'm Dorico's product manager (as it says below my name on each of my posts). It's also OK to use my name, if you like!
> 
> It's not my intention to overstep when I post here. I clearly identify myself, and I normally make clear in my posts that I'm hardly impartial, in case anybody is in any doubt. I also try to be helpful and to answer questions here, where my expertise (such as it is) can add value.


I appreciate your posts Daniel! I’ve been testing MuseScore only because I like trying new software. Dorico is still my main notation app and compositonally I agree, it’s very adept at realizing one’s ideas. For what it’s worth however, I have to admit the allure of MuseScore and Staffpad is that they have integrated libraries that require no time to set up to realize one’s ideas with pretty impressive results. I love NotePerformer and if I’m handing off a score to a real group, it’s perfectly fine. But I do like the sonic splendour of using Staffpad and now MuseScore to hear playback that sounds really good on its own. 

Yes Dorico does have expression maps and playback with third party libraries but they are often so large that my my modest systems cannot handle it. This is where bespoke libraries that Staffpad and MuseScore really are advantageous.


----------



## mducharme

GainStaging said:


> I was just worried maybe there is something wrong with Dorico's playback function that I didn't notice because I want to buy it soon.


There is nothing wrong whatsoever with Dorico's playback function. Although the built in Halion sounds are not that great (and neither are the built-in sounds in Sibelius), NotePerformer works quite well with it. The magic that you see with software like StaffPad is because they have full control over the amplitude of the instruments in the various registers, and so they can get them to balance in a relatively realistic way. NotePerformer is often used because the balance is excellent, but the sound of the individual instruments is not realistic enough to fool most people.


----------



## GainStaging

mducharme said:


> There is nothing wrong whatsoever with Dorico's playback function. Although the built in Halion sounds are not that great (and neither are the built-in sounds in Sibelius), NotePerformer works quite well with it. The magic that you see with software like StaffPad is because they have full control over the amplitude of the instruments in the various registers, and so they can get them to balance in a relatively realistic way. NotePerformer is often used because the balance is excellent, but the sound of the individual instruments is not realistic enough to fool most people.


I see, this is reassuring to read. Thank you once again.

Indeed, the Halion sounds feel like an oddity in Dorico because it's of much lower quality than everything else Dorico has. But this is an acceptable compromise. I certainly wouldn't want Dorico to be $1000 but includes a decent sample library that only works in Dorico.


----------



## mducharme

GainStaging said:


> Indeed, the Halion sounds feel like an oddity in Dorico because it's of much lower quality than everything else Dorico has.


It isn't that unusual if you compare it with the other major commercial notation products, namely Finale and Sibelius. Finale has Garritan samples, which might be considered marginally better than Halion. Sibelius has their Sibelius Sounds, which are generally pretty bad, both in terms of sound and in terms of getting a realistic sense of balance of the ensemble.


----------



## dcoscina

GainStaging said:


> I see, this is reassuring to read. Thank you once again.
> 
> Indeed, the Halion sounds feel like an oddity in Dorico because it's of much lower quality than everything else Dorico has. But this is an acceptable compromise. I certainly wouldn't want Dorico to be $1000 but includes a decent sample library that only works in Dorico.


I'm still a little puzzled why Steinberg won't work on an integrated version of Iconica for Dorico (single Decca mix, not a gazillion mics that demand more memory). Its sounds are better than the HALion Orchestra from the mid-2000s (I should know because I bought it when it was new waaay back in 2004/2005). I will say that the legatos even on the full-blown Iconica leave something to be desired... the scripting sounds odd... Not to veer this thread too far off into Dorico land but I think our hope at this point rests solely in Arne's hands for NotePerformer 4.

Back to MuseScore 4, I'm actually impressed with all of the daily updates the app and its sound libraries are getting. I know it's in Beta so this is natural but using the MuseHub is awfully convenient to have the most recent updates. Though, I will say it doesn't come without its gaffes... one build effectively screwed up trill playback over the bar... it's still kinda funky compared to earlier builds where it was fine..


----------



## ssnowe

I think I understand Doricos goals regarding the capablity to use any vst you want as it opens them to a large audience who have made a sizable investment in sound libraries. If they didn’t do this many would turn away not being able to use their favorite libraries.

However, being able to use my favorite libraries realistically requires days and weeks of customizing expression maps to make those libraries sound good. It is true that Dorico has a list of expression maps created by outside parties that go part of the way to making vst libraries work, but the reality is they are not fully complete requiring an investment in tweaking, adjusting and tuning to get them right.

Considering the cost (free), I sincerely appreciate the effort made by others and am truly thankful. However, at the end of the day I just want to spend my time composing and playing, not creating, modifying and altering expression maps as there are only so many hours in the day.

If Dorico made the investment in creating high quality maps I would buy them. If they had high quality instruments mapped to Dorico I would buy them. I am more than happy to pay for the work but I really really really don’t want to have to do this myself anymore.

As I mentioned earlier, I want to play the piano, not build the piano.


----------



## dcoscina

ssnowe said:


> I think I understand Doricos goals regarding the capablity to use any vst you want as it opens them to a large audience who have made a sizable investment in sound libraries. If they didn’t do this many would turn away not being able to use their favorite libraries.
> 
> However, being able to use my favorite libraries realistically requires days and weeks of customizing expression maps to make those libraries sound good. It is true that Dorico has a list of expression maps created by outside parties that go part of the way to making vst libraries work, but the reality is they are not fully complete requiring an investment in tweaking, adjusting and tuning to get them right.
> 
> Considering the cost (free), I sincerely appreciate the effort made by others and am truly thankful. However, at the end of the day I just want to spend my time composing and playing, not creating, modifying and altering expression maps as there are only so many hours in the day.
> 
> If Dorico made the investment in creating high quality maps I would buy them. If they had high quality instruments mapped to Dorico I would buy them. I am more than happy to pay for the work but I really really really don’t want to have to do this myself anymore.
> 
> As I mentioned earlier, I want to play the piano, not build the piano.


I’m in this camp as well. I want transparency when it comes to tech and composing music. If I’m in DAW land I know that’s part of the game to be endlessly tweaking stuff, but when I’m working in notation software I just want the ability to realize ideas as quickly and accurately as possible


----------



## blaggins

Daniel and Wallander should join forces and give old Noteperformer4 a slap to the behind. Giddyap! 🏇


----------



## youngpokie

ssnowe said:


> However, being able to use my favorite libraries realistically requires days and weeks of customizing expression maps to make those libraries sound good.



For Steinberg to develop a streamlined version of Iconica means tons of development hours spent on tweaking a library that's not exactly regarded as best in class. I don't know how well it sells but it's not the subject of hundreds of discussion threads here. Even if they did decide to do that, there are going to be users (myself included) who would be very vocally not onboard because of the overall Iconica sound. The same is true, at least in my case, for Note Performer - I think it totally sucks.

This thread points to _at least_ two "playback" user camps: those who want to focus on composition only and will accept compromises in sound, and those who need to make production level mockups and therefore who _really do need_ tons of tweaking options and _are willing to spend days and weeks_ customizing the expression maps.

The former option is already available with NotePerformer, HAlion and Iconica. With the upcoming new version of NP there's going to an extra option for this camp.

But for the mockup-oriented people there has been very little recently considering that Dorico went through a change in the underlying Qt framework that meant an entire year spent on rebuilding some playback functionality. There are screenshots on Daniel's Twitter feed showing off rather tantalizing new MIDI editor functionality, so hopefully this area of development will see more effort soon.

And finally, if someone's favorite library doesn't work well with Dorico or lacks the expression maps, they should be talking to the library developer and not asking Dorico team for fix that developer's oversight.


----------



## Jett Hitt

I agree with most of what has been said here. My thinking aligns especially well with @ssnowe. I would happily pay for expression maps for OT libraries (and others)--maps made by someone who knows what they are doing because those coming from the userbase are sorely lacking. I do not agree that we should be badgering the developers because few of them have provided expression maps for Cubase or Articulation Sets for Logic. Why would they make an exception for Dorico? This could, I suppose, be a startup business for someone to do what Marc @babylonwaves has done.

Dorico could invest a lot of time and resources in a bespoke library, but they aren't likely to beat StaffPad (and now Musescore) at their own game. It seems to me that Dorico's goal should be to allow the user to harness many different VST libraries in a quick and efficient manner. They built the controller lanes and various editors (though I think that it still lacks the ability to offset the negative track delay), but now they need to focus on the "quick and efficient." As things stand, I am just going to keep using StaffPad and, perhaps soon, Musescore.

When I look at the way that Dorico implemented expression maps, it is sort of brilliant. Unfortunately, the cure is worse than the disease. I think that it is too complicated, and it is never going to fly. Assuming that Musescore functions as intended (and I think it will), it is going to be nearly impossible to compete with because it is free. Were I still teaching at university, I would be recommending it to all of my students. Musescore also has the ability to play VSTs, though my impression is that this functionality is still quite primitive. Dorico's best hope, it seems to me, is to capture the professional composer market--those of us who will pay for the software and own the libraries. If high-quality mockups rendered with Dorico begin to surface, it is going to attract people like me who want to work with notation and are willing to pay. To my mind, the only way this happens is if the expression map system is completely overhauled or Dorico provides high-quality expression maps for the major libraries. In the meantime, I'll be writing with StaffPad and looking forward to Musescore 4.


----------



## dcoscina

I added a little more to my Trilled to See You piece in MuseScore. A few new updates to instruments this week seems to have helped in some areas. 

View attachment More Trilled to See You .mp4


----------



## babylonwaves

Jett Hitt said:


> I do not agree that we should be badgering the developers because few of them have provided expression maps for Cubase or Articulation Sets for Logic. Why would they make an exception for Dorico? This could, I suppose, be a startup business for someone to do what Marc @babylonwaves has done.


@Jett Hitt 
We want to make expression maps for Dorico. And the complexity holds us back. I don't want to derail the thread with an off-topic comment, but, in a nutshell, we would provide expression maps if our users and we can find a common ground on what needs to be in that map. Do we need to supply dynamics information for every articulation? If dynamics are essential, we're out - we won't be able to add this to 9500 expression maps, and on top, in my opinion, it's a piece of subjective information. Would you consider the maps incomplete if we wouldn't fill in the dynamics information?


----------



## Jett Hitt

babylonwaves said:


> @Jett Hitt
> We want to make expression maps for Dorico. And the complexity holds us back. I don't want to derail the thread with an off-topic comment, but, in a nutshell, we would provide expression maps if our users and we can find a common ground on what needs to be in that map. Do we need to supply dynamics information for every articulation? If dynamics are essential, we're out - we won't be able to add this to 9500 expression maps, and on top, in my opinion, it's a piece of subjective information. Would you consider the maps incomplete if we wouldn't fill in the dynamics information?


I guess I would have to try it to say I’d be 100% onboard, but my gut feeling is that it would be fine. I think that most people would be understanding if you explained the cumbersome nature of doing it for so many libraries AND included a set of instructions detailing exactly what the user needs to do to fill in the gap. One of Dorico’s problems has been the lack of instruction on this topic. It’s out there, but you’ve got to wade through hours of livestream videos to find it, and even then, it’ll be partial at best. @ed buller has provided the best instruction of anyone by far.


----------



## Jett Hitt

dcoscina said:


> I added a little more to my Trilled to See You piece in MuseScore. A few new updates to instruments this week seems to have helped in some areas.
> 
> View attachment More Trilled to See You .mp4


The bar for Dorico is getting higher all the time. 😂


----------



## youngpokie

babylonwaves said:


> Do we need to supply dynamics information for every articulation? If dynamics are essential


@babylonwaves Sorry for asking, but are you actually able to create an expression map entry that combines articulation and dynamic and have it actually _play back_? My understanding was these ExMap dynamics are ignored in current Dorico versions and it plays back the score markings instead. If you got it to work, could you explain how? Thanks!


----------



## Jett Hitt

youngpokie said:


> @babylonwaves Sorry for asking, but are you actually able to create an expression map entry that combines articulation and dynamic and have it actually _play back_? My understanding was these ExMap dynamics are ignored in current Dorico versions and it plays back the score markings instead. If you got it to work, could you explain how? Thanks!


This was my experience, too. Regardless of what I put in the expression map, Dorico always hijacked the map with its own inner settings.


----------



## youngpokie

Jett Hitt said:


> Regardless of what I put in the expression map, Dorico always hijacked the map with its own inner settings.


I'm starting to think that I'm not understanding something here.

Dorico plays back the dynamic that I myself input per instrument into the score via Shift+D, and it is using the CC controller to crossfade the dynamic layers for that instrument that I myself assigned. This, along with the ability to adjust the dynamics response curve in the Expression Map for the entire instrument, is already very advanced. What problem does articulation+dynamic entry actually solve?

Sorry for being so dense!!


----------



## Jett Hitt

youngpokie said:


> I'm starting to think that I'm not understanding something here.
> 
> Dorico plays back the dynamic that I myself input per instrument into the score via Shift+D, and it is using the CC controller to crossfade the dynamic layers for that instrument that I myself assigned. This, along with the ability to adjust the dynamics response curve in the Expression Map for the entire instrument, is already very advanced. What problem does articulation+dynamic entry actually solve?
> 
> Sorry for being so dense!!


OMG don’t apologize for being dense. This is dense. As Marc said above, “The complexity holds us back.” To answer your question, I have no idea.


----------



## babylonwaves

youngpokie said:


> @babylonwaves Sorry for asking, but are you actually able to create an expression map entry that combines articulation and dynamic and have it actually _play back_? My understanding was these ExMap dynamics are ignored in current Dorico versions and it plays back the score markings instead. If you got it to work, could you explain how? Thanks!


@youngpokie @Jett Hitt 
My knowledge is purely based on the manual and specs available. It could well be that I'm referring to an option that isn't active so far.

I'm going to send you both a PM tomorrow. It would be great to talk this through. Maybe there is a reasonable way to make a version for Dorico ...

Thanks, Marc


----------



## Jett Hitt

babylonwaves said:


> @youngpokie @Jett Hitt
> My knowledge is purely based on the manual and specs available. It could well be that I'm referring to an option that isn't active so far.
> 
> I'm going to send you both a PM tomorrow. It would be great to talk this through. Maybe there is a reasonable way to make a version for Dorico ...
> 
> Thanks, Marc


I’m delighted to talk about the options, but this might be the blind leading the blind. If he’s game, including @Daniel S. in the conversation would be the best of all worlds, as he’s the expert. What’s more, it is really in his best interest for you to create a high quality add-on that enhances his product. Your work is well known on this forum, and as a current customer, I’d give you a hearty recommendation. It’s a win-win for everyone.


----------



## ed buller

youngpokie said:


> @babylonwaves Sorry for asking, but are you actually able to create an expression map entry that combines articulation and dynamic and have it actually _play back_? My understanding was these ExMap dynamics are ignored in current Dorico versions and it plays back the score markings instead. If you got it to work, could you explain how? Thanks!


I'm sorry I'm not sure I understand. The purpose of Expression Maps is to assign a particular patch to a particular technique. Dynamics is a variable on top of this. It really is very straightforward. You even have some control on how the technique will respond. You can pick two seperate CC controllers ( IE mod wheel and expression ) and velocity . 

There is also a basic curve that changes it from a linear response to a curved one.


Best

ed


----------



## youngpokie

ed buller said:


> assign a particular patch to a particular technique. Dynamics is a variable on top of this


Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say. It's possible to create a playing technique for "fff+staccato", just to throw an example out there, but it doesn't work like that in playback.


----------



## Dewdman42

pinki said:


> I’ve been demoing Dorico, both Pro and Elements this month but I ended up going with Musescore 3.6 because it’s well, just so good.
> The engraving features in the latest version means I’m not sure its worth paying for a notation programme anymore.…and Dorico… it’s VERY expensive for the Pro version that has the engraving I need. I do think Elements offers excellent value for money however.
> 
> I really wanted to love Dorico but in the end it’s too complex, it lacks simplicity and elegance. Musescore is just so easy and straightforward to use. I don’t need DAW features, I need flow.


Just depends on what you need. MuseScore is amazing for what it is..and frankly I think it is capable of rendering gorgeous notation. Its free. For a lot of people that is the end of the conversation and nothing wrong with that.

forget about sound playback, that is a big can of worms right now. But Dorico offers certain features that actually m make it very very productive if you are busy working professional that needs to crank out various scores and parts quickly with little fuss....Dorico is really setting new standards in that way. I am not sure I would use it to publish.....but I'm not publishing anything so what do I care. Probably people publishing are still using Finale for all I know.

Anyway, MuseScore is free and if you just want to make some nice looking sheet music to share with your friends or keep for posterity or whatever..it is more than fine. But if I were needing to get a score notated, parts generated, printed quickly for an orchestral recording session on Friday, I would definitely not be using MuseScore..I'd probably be using Dorico.


----------



## ed buller

youngpokie said:


> Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say. It's possible to create a playing technique for "fff+staccato", just to throw an example out there, but it doesn't work like that in playback.


Can you explain a bit more please. You want a staccato patch. AND you want it to be fff ?

best

e


----------



## pefra

Daniel S. said:


> I'm not a sales rep, for what it's worth: I'm Dorico's product manager (as it says below my name on each of my posts). It's also OK to use my name, if you like!
> 
> It's not my intention to overstep when I post here. I clearly identify myself, and I normally make clear in my posts that I'm hardly impartial, in case anybody is in any doubt. I also try to be helpful and to answer questions here, where my expertise (such as it is) can add value.


Jumping in at the very next post bashing Sibelius when a user asks other members about their experiences is bad behavior, no matter how you put it. It is in my opinion very aggressiv marketing, but that's just me. And it's very easy to do so, given the fact that you where responsible for Sibelius as an insider. 

Obviously members who are using Dorico have a different view on this. Which is understandable.

Maybe we should invite Tantacrul (the one who did not pay for his NFR) to also post here regularly and tell us, what MS has over Dorico. Let's see how that ends. 

But fine. Have fun.

P.S.: I'm sure Alan Silvestri payed for his Dorico version, right?


----------



## Daniel S.

As it happens, yes, Alan Silvestri did indeed pay for his Dorico software – I didn't know he was even using it until his assistant got in touch.

I didn't bash Sibelius (it's not my style). I poured my heart and soul into Sibelius for thirteen (mostly very happy) years, and I think it's very good, very mature software, though it has evolved a lot less quickly since our team moved on from there. All I did was point out some areas where Dorico has advantages over Sibelius, from my perspective.

The message that you didn't appreciate this has been clearly received and understood by me. I have tried in my posts since to be even more explicit about declaring my interest, which I will continue to do. I apologise to you for the offence I have apparently caused. I believe it's possible for you to "ignore" another user's posts in this forum software, so perhaps you would be happier if you didn't see any further posts from me?


----------



## pefra

Daniel S. said:


> I believe it's possible for you to "ignore" another user's posts in this forum software, so perhaps you would be happier if you didn't see any further posts from me?


Daniel,
no need to apologize, it's just some text on some forum, nobody died. And also thanks for the advice how to use the forum (I'm sure I can figure this out). And no, I absolutely want to see what you are posting, for a variety of reasons. One is that I'm not dissing Dorico (it's not what I need but I'm watching). In fact I recommended it in several posts.




Daniel S. said:


> All I did was point out some areas where Dorico has advantages over Sibelius, from my perspective.


Yes, after you hijacked the original post, bevor "some people" could answer the question whether they were still using Sibelius over Dorico. I'm old enough to see this, and so are others. I don't want to take this any further, but I still have my opinion on this matter. And if *you* don't want to see *my* posts, you could also just ignore them 

Have fun.


----------



## Daniel S.

Replying to a thread is not "hijacking", even if you are the first person to reply. Furthermore, any one forum member posting a reply to a topic doesn't stop any other forum user from further replying – that thread has something like 180 replies now, so it clearly didn't inhibit the discussion. And it happens to be a topic in which I have perhaps uniquely relevant knowledge and experience, so it seemed like I could make a useful contribution.


----------



## pefra

I think you are deliberately misunderstanding me. OP was: "Are there any Sibelius users here that still prefer Sibelius after trying Dorico?"

Fine. I'm seeing a STOP sign now.


----------



## dcoscina

I use Dorico for all my concert work needs. I have been enjoying testing MuseScore4 too. That's all I have to say about that.


----------



## Daniel S.

pefra said:


> I think you are deliberately misunderstanding me. Fine.


I can assure you that I am not. I am doing my best to understand your concerns and respond to them sincerely, but it does seem that we cannot see eye to eye on this issue. Please be assured that I have taken your feedback on board.


----------



## Wensleydale

If Daniel’s post was so inappropriate, it’s odd that in the next post the OP expressed gratitude for it.


----------



## Jett Hitt

I have watched this unfold this morning, and I am left scratching my head asking, "WTF? WTAF?" Carry on Daniel. Delighted you're here.

BTW: I own Finale, Sibelius, and Dorico, and I have used Musescore 3.6. Dorico is superior to all of these--even Finale if for no other reason than potential. Musescore 4? Well, we shall see. I suspect that it will only best Dorico in the playback arena.


----------



## youngpokie

pefra said:


> I'm seeing a STOP sign now.


Finally.


----------



## Markrs

Jett Hitt said:


> Carry on Daniel. Delighted you're here.


I strongly echo that view as well, great to have you here Daniel!


----------



## dcoscina

Markrs said:


> I strongly echo that view as well, great to have you here Daniel!


Here here! Me too! I would love more developers to come on and provide their POV. ... this place used to have lots of them but many got scared off by aggressive folks. This is collectively our loss... save for the few who are getting nosebleeds from being so high up on their horse.


----------



## Noeticus

I only wish this forum, and this thread, could have the Dorico Product Manager posting some wonderfully insightful, high-functioning, and mature comments in it.

Oh, wait, we do have this. Wow! 

Daniel is one of the reasons I LOVE the Vi-Control forum.

THANK YOU, Daniel.

🍷 🍷 🍷 🍷 🍷


----------



## PhilA

Markrs said:


> I strongly echo that view as well, great to have you here Daniel!


Seconded, thirded or however many were up to now 😁


----------



## richhickey

If someone doesn't want to hear what @Daniel S. has to say they can use the 'ignore' feature. It is incredibly valuable to the VI-C community to have the ability to interact _here_ with the developers of our tools, and refreshing that they are engaged and listening.


----------



## Lannister

richhickey said:


> If someone doesn't want to hear what @Daniel S. has to say they can use the 'ignore' feature. It is incredibly valuable to the VI-C community to have the ability to interact _here_ with the developers of our tools, and refreshing that they are engaged and listening.


This. I don't get the argument against devs etc posting here, would love to see more.


----------



## theREALskylark

youngpokie said:


> Finally.


Yeah, Finale.


----------



## pefra

Wensleydale said:


> If Daniel’s post was so inappropriate, it’s odd that in the next post the OP expressed gratitude for it.


Maybe he liked what Daniel said? Everyone is allowed to have his own opinion


----------



## Wensleydale

pefra said:


> Maybe he liked what Daniel said? Everyone is allowed to have his own opinion


Of course. But your argument (based solely on one sentence of the original post, and not the thread title) appears to be that Daniel’s post was not what the OP was asking for. Clearly it was. Or are you saying that, even if it was exactly what the OP wanted, Daniel shouldn’t have posted it anyway?


----------



## pefra

I don't know what the OP wanted, other than what he posted, and I don't want to speak out instead of him. Actually I never did. I have expressed my opinion in this thread (at large), so there is no need to repeat it here. If you, too, don't get the gist of what I'm saying, I'm sorry, maybe I should have explained better. Obviously I can't. If it's okay for you, I don't see a problem. Many people have expressed their agreement that Daniel jumped in immediately after the OP. That's fine with me, but it doesn't change my opinion. It's not a poll, although some members obviously act that way. That's how forums roll.

People have their opinion. Some come here for the discussion, others are just bored, some want to sell something, others want to help. Sometimes there is a fine line, and sometimes someone crosses this line, and sometimes this happens to me too. As I said before, nothing bad happened, it's just a forum.

And now, as @youngpokie suggested, let's finally stop it here.

Have fun.
​


----------



## Noeticus




----------



## Jett Hitt

I see all the problems with the Musescore adaptation of the playback engine that StaffPad has. There has long since been trouble with staccato notes in StaffPad, and in this video and several others, I have noticed that this problem persists in Musescore. It is one of those inexplicable things that DWH just refused to address, and here the issue is again.


----------



## pefra

MuseScore's biggest mistake was not integrating NotePerformer.


----------



## d.healey

pefra said:


> MuseScore's biggest mistake was not integrating NotePerformer.


From what I understand the license is not compatible. Musescore is GNU GPL, Note Performer is proprietary (as is MuseHub).


----------



## pefra

Yes, that's an ongoing issue in GNU/Linux land. It's also the reason why we don't have proper commercial sound libraries in Linux. On the other hand Muse has integrated StaffPad sounds, which is also not open source. But I think they now own them, so does that make the difference? I don't know much about these licenses, only thing I can say is they are very often counterproductive. I'm a big fan when it comes to Linux, and I would switch in a moment. But they don't have a chance as long as these license issues haven't been solved.


----------



## Lannister

d.healey said:


> From what I understand the license is not compatible. Musescore is GNU GPL, Note Performer is proprietary (as is MuseHub).


The Musesounds that will be bundled aren't open source, either I think, but legally probably easier to integrate because they share the same parent company.


----------



## d.healey

pefra said:


> why we don't have proper commercial sound libraries in Linux


At the risk of incurring your ire  check out my site (Libre Wave) 



pefra said:


> But I think they now own them, so does that make the difference? I don't know much about these licenses, only thing I can say is they are very often counterproductive.


It would only make a difference if they choose to release it under a compatible license, but so far they haven't, they'd also have to change the license of the MuseHub app.



Lannister said:


> The Musesounds that will be bundled aren't open source, either I think, but legally probably easier to integrate because they share the same parent company.


I don't think sounds - as in audio files - can be open source, since they don't have source code. They can be liberally licensed though. But as to the original point, to be able to integrate Note Performer, which is a combination of software and audio files, the software would need to be under a compatible license.


----------



## pefra

d.healey said:


> At the risk of incurring your ire  check out my site (Libre Wave)
> 
> 
> It would only make a difference if they choose to release it under a compatible license, but so far they haven't, they'd also have to change the license of the MuseHub app.
> 
> 
> I don't think sounds - as in audio files - can be open source, since they don't have source code. They can be liberally licensed though. But as to the original point, to be able to integrate Note Performer, which is a combination of software and audio files, the software would need to be under a compatible license.



Thank you for pointing me to your website, will check! As for NP, I would think MuseScore could be open source, while NP could still be proprietary. As far as I understand it's a plugin, like a VSTi (?), but maybe Arne Wallander could jump in here and explain a bit more. That would be great.


----------



## Noeticus




----------



## Jett Hitt

Oh no. The grand piano has the same problem as the StaffPad OT Steinway D: the chords play back rolled. To me, this is the worst of all the StaffPad libraries, and DWH refused to fix it. Surely this will finally be addressed in Musescore.


----------



## rsg22

Jett Hitt said:


> Oh no. The grand piano has the same problem as the StaffPad OT Steinway D: the chords play back rolled. To me, this is the worst of all the StaffPad libraries, and DWH refused to fix it. Surely this will finally be addressed in Musescore.


I hope so. I’m very disheartened that all of the playback bugs we’ve been dealing with in Staffpad are present one for one in the MuseScore beta.


----------



## Jett Hitt

rsg22 said:


> I hope so. I’m very disheartened that all of the playback bugs we’ve been dealing with in Staffpad are present one for one in the MuseScore beta.


"Disheartening" is exactly what it is. It is mind-boggling that all of these problems still persist after all this time.


----------



## Noeticus




----------



## ssnowe

Jett Hitt said:


> "Disheartening" is exactly what it is. It is mind-boggling that all of these problems still persist after all this time.


With musescore being pc/mac based it may be fairly easy to go in and tweak the sound definition files (assuming they are xml based like staffpad) to get the sound you want.


----------



## sundrowned

ssnowe said:


> With musescore being pc/mac based it may be fairly easy to go in and tweak the sound definition files (assuming they are xml based like staffpad) to get the sound you want.


They've locked the files down more than staffpad. You can't edit them like the staffpad ones. Or at least I couldn't when I had a quick look.


----------



## Jett Hitt

sundrowned said:


> They've locked the files down more than staffpad. You can't edit them like the staffpad ones. Or at least I couldn't when I had a quick look.


This would probably be doubly problematic on the Mac. After the potential for hacking StaffPad was revealed to us last year by ?????? (Can’t remember his screen name), I was hopeful that Musescore could be hacked the same way.


----------



## ssnowe

Would be stupid and petty to lock the definitions. Regardless, being open source, could look at source code on github to figure it out, would just need to look at the code that loads/parses the sound files.

Taking a look it would most likely be the opus and opusenc directories that contain the code:(https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/tree/master/thirdparty)

Opus is the codec that Staffpad uses. Information regarding opus can be found here: https://opus-codec.org/

Need to make sure you are on the Musescore 4 branch: https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/projects/47


----------



## dcoscina

Instrument updates appear to be coming almost daily now. Horns sound better but Jett is right about string shorts- they stand out like a sore thumb still.


----------



## RogiervG

ssnowe said:


> Would be stupid and petty to lock the definitions. Regardless, being open source, could look at source code on github to figure it out, would just need to look at the code that loads/parses the sound files.
> 
> Taking a look it would most likely be the opus and opusenc directories that contain the code:(https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/tree/master/thirdparty)
> 
> Opus is the sound library that Staffpad uses. Information regarding opus can be found here: https://opus-codec.org/
> 
> Need to make sure you are on the Musescore 4 branch: https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/projects/47


not the sound library (= actual sounds), but the codec (= encode/decode data streams, in this case audio data)


----------



## ssnowe

RogiervG said:


> not the sound library (= actual sounds), but the codec (= encode/decode data streams, in this case audio data)


Fixed


----------



## PhilA

ssnowe said:


> Would be stupid and petty to lock the definitions. Regardless, being open source, could look at source code on github to figure it out, would just need to look at the code that loads/parses the sound files.
> 
> Taking a look it would most likely be the opus and opusenc directories that contain the code:(https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/tree/master/thirdparty)
> 
> Opus is the codec that Staffpad uses. Information regarding opus can be found here: https://opus-codec.org/
> 
> Need to make sure you are on the Musescore 4 branch: https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/projects/47


I think the suggestion in this post answers the original thread topic 😉
I want to make music not hack code (which is the day job)
Anyway they have done something very good with this playback. As someone who paid a fair bit of money for StaffPad this is a bit of a bitter pill.


----------



## sundrowned

PhilA said:


> I want to make music not hack code (which is the day job)


The potential was for others to do it for you. Also once you know what the parameters are it's pretty easy to adjust them (in staffpad).


----------



## servandus

First thing I did after installing musescore 4 was to look for the xml definition files and the sfz articulation files. As @ssnowe says, the new audio samples are encoded with opuslib and streamed by the playback engine exactly like in Satffpad, so I thought it would also be easy to find and edit the xml and sfz files. Staffpad already looked pretty much like open source software in that respect, and setting up custom playback rules is really easy and relatively straightforward (at least on Windows), as I tried to explain in that old "mini course" post. 

Well, unfortunately it does not seem to be the case in musescore. Xml files are included as a text string in a larger instrument database file, and, as far as I could see, lack some essential features of the original Staffpad format (no way to reference articulation files, for example), so that's now done in a completely different way (maybe it's now hardcoded in the muse player itself, which could also explain why I'm not able to find the sfz files). 

Anyway, I haven't spent much time with this, and honestly I don't plan to. I wasted too much time with this last time. It's up to the Staffpad and musescore teams to decide whether they want to provide an easy way to customize the playback rules or not. As we discussed back then when I posted about Staffpad's xml syntax, I see a huge potential in doing so, but I really doubt they agree. 

What really puzzles me though, as @Jett Hitt points out, is that, inspite of musescore 4 update having been delayed for almost a year just to incorporate Staffpad's playback engine, none of the obvious problems we talked about have been fixed. They are still there in full glory. If you watch the video I sent to the Staffpad team when I asked them to document the syntax and allow users to create their own rules, you'll see all those issues are now present in musescore, one by one. They've done nothing to fix them. That I can't understand.

Anyhow, it's still a beta version, so let's wait and see which of these issues they're willing to address in this last development phase. As I showed, the most painful ones (leagto by default instead of detaché/tonguing, unbalanced dynamics of short articulations, getting rid of time based constraints when triggering articulations, etc) are really easy to fix (at least they are in Staffpad).


----------



## ssnowe

Looking at the musescore source code the definitions may now reside in json files (looking at source code only, haven’t downloaded program yet)


----------



## servandus

I might be wrong, but I think you're probably looking at the json files where the articulatiions (the graphical symbols, not the sound patches) are defined within the app.

The recorded articulations included in the opus sound files of each library are mapped, referenced and built into actual articulation patches in the sfz articulation files, which in Staffpad are simple text files using the sfz format. As this format is relatively well documented, you can edit those sfz files and modify what samples are triggered, how many velocity layers you want to use, change their crossfade values to get a better dynamic response, alter the attack or release times locally for each sample or globally for the whole patch, etc. These files are of course library dependent, so they can't be a part of musescore source code. They are part of each sound library package. Not sure if the new muse sampler is using the same sfz format though, but that's what made it so easy to customize and create your own patches in Staffpad. It's like editing a kontakt patch, but from a text file instead of a graphical interface.

While musescore is open source, the new muse player is not, so it's up to them whether they want to allow users to customize the patches and playback rules used by the playback engine or not. As users, we're still in the same position here than we were with Staffpad all those past years.


----------



## ssnowe

If they truly lock up articulations I probably won’t go too much further with musescore. 

I understand protection/encryption on the samples themselves but preventing instrument fine tuning in xml stlye or sfz style instrument maps is essentially introducing a bridge too far, I have no interest in traveling there.


----------



## Jett Hitt

Ah @servandus, there you are! I didn't want to call you by your real name, and the variation in your screen name eluded me. I had hoped that you would be taking a look under the hood in Musescore. It is disappointing to learn that things aren't as straightforward in Musescore. Perhaps after you showed them the potential, they made an effort to conceal it. The rejection of your presentation to DWH remains the most baffling and infuriating event in software history in my mind. I ceased to recommend StaffPad to anyone--because I think it is an expensive dead end--and I began to look elsewhere. I had hoped that Musescore would be the answer, but it seems that we are going to be straddled with the same lackadaisical thinking.


----------



## ssnowe

You know what really grinds my gears - companies locking up products you pay good money for. 

Servandus identified issues in Staffpad quite a while ago, prepared a detailed description regarding the issues and then sent them to the developer. 

Not only did the Staffpad developer do absolutely totally nothing about it but then they made a point to ensure that when using the Staffpad engine in musescore everyone is totally locked out of correcting the same exact issues that were present in Staffpad.

Arrogance, simple unbridled full blown arrogance. Gotta love the “you will own nothing” world we live in now.


----------



## sundrowned

Jett Hitt said:


> The rejection of your presentation to DWH remains the most baffling and infuriating event in software history in my mind.


Man it stills stings. So much unused potential there.


----------



## Jett Hitt

sundrowned said:


> Man it stills stings. So much unused potential there.


Yes it does, and just thinking about it makes my blood pressure go up.


----------



## Gingerbread

Somehow I missed the whole fiasco with Staffpad when it happened earlier this year. I just went down the rabbit hole with it, and I am so saddened and infuriated. It's one thing not to allow users to customize; it's even worse not to fix the things that were demonstrably easy to fix, and had already _been fixed_ by @servandus! It sounded _so good_ after the fixes that were rejected.

I truly don't understand. I love Staffpad, but I am very disappointed. Doesn't inspire confidence in MuseScore.


----------



## d.healey

Gingerbread said:


> Doesn't inspire confidence in MuseScore.


MuseScore is free software, StaffPad (and Muse Sounds) is proprietary. Don't paint MuseScore with the same brush. I will not be using Muse Sounds but I will definitely be using MuseScore.

It's a shame they chose to use a proprietary playback system but if you use/support any proprietary software then you can't be too surprised that it restricts you. Proprietary software is all about restricting you to benefit the developer.

I suspect it won't be too long until we start seeing premium Muse Sounds (or probably some subscription based horribleness).


----------



## Jett Hitt

d.healey said:


> MuseScore is free software, StaffPad (and Muse Sounds) is proprietary. Don't paint MuseScore with the same brush. I will not be using Muse Sounds but I will definitely be using MuseScore.
> 
> It's a shame they chose to use a proprietary playback system but if you use/support any proprietary software then you can't be too surprised that it restricts you. Proprietary software is all about restricting you to benefit the developer.
> 
> I suspect it won't be too long until we start seeing premium Muse Sounds (or probably some subscription based horribleness).


I’m not really sure what this means. Musegroup acquired Musescore in 2017. Just because they provide it for free doesn’t mean that it isn’t proprietary.


----------



## servandus

Sorry to bring those somehow bitter memories back, guys. Yes, it was a shame that my suggestions were not taken into consideration by DWH at that time, but the disappointment led me to invest in Dorico, and I couldn't be happier now. Granted, my approach to Dorico is probably not conventional (for example I don't use expression maps at all, because I want/need my scores completely decoupled from the playback data), but it really suits me like a glove. 

I teach a course on musescore at the conservatory, so I'm closely following the news and updates, and I even mess a little bit with the nightlies now and then, but unless they change their mind and openly allow users to customize the playback, there's no way I waste time again even reporting the most obvious bugs of these new muse sounds.

In any case, neither Staffpad nor musescore come close to what Dorico offers right now, so I found my cure for disappointments.


----------



## d.healey

Jett Hitt said:


> I’m not really sure what this means. Musegroup acquired Musescore in 2017. Just because they provide it for free doesn’t mean that it isn’t proprietary.


Musescore is "free software" aka open source, the price is irrelevant. Muse Sounds on the other hand is non-free. Musescore is licensed under the GNU GPL and unless Muse Group rewrites it entirely that isn't going to change.


----------



## Jett Hitt

servandus said:


> In any case, neither Staffpad nor musescore come close to what Dorico offers right now, so I found my cure for disappointments.


I am probably going to have to make the transition to Dorico myself. I spent a couple of weeks building expression maps last February only to find whole parts of the app missing. I laid it aside with the intention of returning to it once they replaced the missing editors, but I just never picked it up again. For my purposes, I see no point in using it without expression maps, however. I already have Finale, and I am quite adept at it. In any case, I am glad that things have worked out for you.


----------



## ssnowe

Based on this discussion it’s looking like musegroup will probably be offering subscription sounds, simply because everybody else is doing it. 

As I’ve got really nice sample library vsts that I already own I can’t see going down that route. I already paid for the Staffpad libraries that can’t be used anywhere else and don’t really want to do that again. 

That and subscriptions are just getting really old, I want to own, not rent.


----------



## Jett Hitt

ssnowe said:


> Based on this discussion it’s looking like musegroup will probably be offering subscription sounds, simply because everybody else is doing it.
> 
> As I’ve got really nice sample library vsts that I already own I can’t see going down that route. I already paid for the Staffpad libraries that can’t be used anywhere else and don’t really want to do that again.
> 
> That and subscriptions are just getting really old, I want to own, not rent.


Even if Berlin Strings that you could buy came out for Musescore, I am not sure that I could bring myself to pay for it a third time. And I sure won't do subscriptions. I have resisted that everywhere.


----------



## Noeticus




----------



## benwiggy

servandus said:


> (for example I don't use expression maps at all, because I want/need my scores completely decoupled from the playback data),


I don't understand this. The whole point of expression maps *is* to decouple your score from the playback data. Change the Map for a different library/sample, and your score stays the same. 

The map translates your notation to the MIDI that the playback needs. It doesn't alter it.


----------



## servandus

benwiggy said:


> The whole point of expression maps *is* to decouple your score from the playback data.


On the contrary, I see using expression maps as just a "clever" way to couple/bind the graphical symbols of music notation with sample articulations. This is the last thing I would want/need, no matter how clever (or silly) the system might be.

Maybe a simple example would save me some words. This is how the typical alla marcia dotted rhythm is usually notated for the strings. The slur here simply means that the dotted rhythm should be played as a hooked bowing, rather than as a Z bowing. 






If you have an expression map that binds slurs to legato samples, the results could leave you laughing or crying, depending on how desperate you are at that moment.

This, for example, is the new strings in musescore 4, which, like Staffpad, uses such automatic mappings:

View attachment musescore.mp3


It's not that these new strings sound horrible. Berlin Strings would probably sound as bad if they are made to follow any automatic playback system.

Now this is Berlin Strings in dorico without expression maps.

View attachment dorico.mp3


This is just a typical, simple cliché, the kind of silly music you would write for school string ensembles (as the little march from which this excerpt is taken actually is). Forget about the nuances of concert music. Even with such common, simple gestures, automatic playback would sound ridiculous in most cases, because, if you need an approximation of how the passage would sound when played by real players, you would want martellé/staccato samples to be triggered for the hooked bowing, not legato ones.

A slur doesn't mean one should always expect the kind of "super-expressive-one-finger-on-one-infinite-string-slide" we often call "a good legato" here in this forum (which is why the musescore rendering sound ridiculous, of course). A slur means a thousand different things depending on the musical context. Similarly, a staccato mark could mean so many things for a string player. It could be played as a short martellé on the string, as an off-the-string spiccato (which could be "tapped", "brushed" or just jetté depending on the character of the music); it could even be played with a slower, portato/louré kind of attack/release depending on the musical context and tempo. Defining expression maps which take into account real musical intention is beyond our capabilities right now. In fact, I think it's not only a question of time and effort; I think it's just not possible at all (and will remain so for a long time, even with the fast development of AI models). A score is a graphical representation of a sonic idea. It's not to be played, it's to be interpreted by human (or artificial) intelligence. And I think AI is not yet mature enough to tackle this kind of task, so forget about a simple set of rules defined in some file or expression map.

But please, don't get me wrong. Expression maps are nice, and certainly useful if you want quick, automatic results, the kind of approximation you would get using Note Performer, the default Staffpad playback, or the new musesounds in musescore. It's all good, and I certainly see how it could be a good idea to invest time and effort building custom maps (as I myself did when I used Staffpad in the past). It's just not the kind of tool I need now. In fact, I've always needed things truly decoupled, and that's why when dorico introduced independent modules for writing, engraving and playback I thought "oh, my god, finally someone who seems to understand what's needed for the kind of work I do!". Dorico is just heaven sent for me. 

That doesn't mean I won't take my time, and do my best to tell Daniel what improvements I think would make the expression map system a better, more efficient one, as we discussed privately. I do think dorico should have expression maps. It's a must in any serious notation software to have such commodities, and the better and smarter the system becomes, the happier we all will be. I just doubt I will ever use it, that's all. Maybe if something like delay times are introduced in the future in expression maps, I could see myself using them "partially" to some extent. I'm very practical. Detest radicalism. I just try to find the fastest, simplest way to get the results I'm after in every situation with tools at hand. And in its present form, I don't need expression maps at all.


----------



## benwiggy

servandus said:


> And in its present form, I don't need expression maps at all.


So do you have to mark in every KS and CC by hand? 


I agree that there are different types of slur -- and of course a real violinist would mark the score with the bowings that they will use. You could add martele, spiccato, portato, etc as a playing technique in the score (visible or hidden), and have it picked up by the expression map. I'd guess that would be slightly less work than manually adding the MIDI data, and be more readable and manageable. (Particularly if you change sample library.)


----------



## Noeticus




----------



## servandus

benwiggy said:


> So do you have to mark in every KS and CC by hand?
> 
> 
> I agree that there are different types of slur -- and of course a real violinist would mark the score with the bowings that they will use. You could add martele, spiccato, portato, etc as a playing technique in the score (visible or hidden), and have it picked up by the expression map. I'd guess that would be slightly less work than manually adding the MIDI data, and be more readable and manageable. (Particularly if you change sample library.)


Shift-P + typing the playing technique vs drawing a point in the key editor. Though I'd probably prefer the former (that's what I do in Staffpad), I really don't have any problem with the latter (especially because I don't have to spend hours setting up expression maps). Anyhow, I'm curious to see to what extent I can translate some of my custom Staffpad playback rules into dorico's expression maps. Maybe I'll change my mind after the test. Right now, I highly doubt it, but who knows?

About switching libraries, I've never been able to do it in any DAW without changing the midi data to match the requirements of the new library anyway, so that's not something that I would expect in dorico either.


----------



## Noeticus




----------



## GroundControl

servandus said:


> First thing I did after installing musescore 4 was to look for the xml definition files and the sfz articulation files. As @ssnowe says, the new audio samples are encoded with opuslib and streamed by the playback engine exactly like in Satffpad, so I thought it would also be easy to find and edit the xml and sfz files. Staffpad already looked pretty much like open source software in that respect, and setting up custom playback rules is really easy and relatively straightforward (at least on Windows), as I tried to explain in that old "mini course" post.
> 
> Well, unfortunately it does not seem to be the case in musescore. Xml files are included as a text string in a larger instrument database file, and, as far as I could see, lack some essential features of the original Staffpad format (no way to reference articulation files, for example), so that's now done in a completely different way (maybe it's now hardcoded in the muse player itself, which could also explain why I'm not able to find the sfz files).
> 
> Anyway, I haven't spent much time with this, and honestly I don't plan to. I wasted too much time with this last time. It's up to the Staffpad and musescore teams to decide whether they want to provide an easy way to customize the playback rules or not. As we discussed back then when I posted about Staffpad's xml syntax, I see a huge potential in doing so, but I really doubt they agree.
> 
> What really puzzles me though, as @Jett Hitt points out, is that, inspite of musescore 4 update having been delayed for almost a year just to incorporate Staffpad's playback engine, none of the obvious problems we talked about have been fixed. They are still there in full glory. If you watch the video I sent to the Staffpad team when I asked them to document the syntax and allow users to create their own rules, you'll see all those issues are now present in musescore, one by one. They've done nothing to fix them. That I can't understand.
> 
> Anyhow, it's still a beta version, so let's wait and see which of these issues they're willing to address in this last development phase. As I showed, the most painful ones (leagto by default instead of detaché/tonguing, unbalanced dynamics of short articulations, getting rid of time based constraints when triggering articulations, etc) are really easy to fix (at least they are in Staffpad).


If you download the nightly build of MuseScore 4 (directly from the site and not through hub) you will see a tab called "DevTools".

I'm not 100% certain what this really is or does, but it looks like they are working on something that might allow ability to adjust articulations.


----------



## servandus

GroundControl said:


> If you download the nightly build of MuseScore 4 (directly from the site and not through hub) you will see a tab called "DevTools".
> 
> I'm not 100% certain what this really is or does, but it looks like they are working on something that might allow ability to adjust articulations.


Yes, I looked into these dev tools even before the release of musesounds. Like you, I'm also not sure, but it does look like the new mpe editor in the making where you could fine tune the dynamics and timings of each articulation in musescore. Looks promising, but right now I don't know how to make it work. I also think somewhere in the musescore forum Tantacrul mentioned that in future 4.x releases they were planning to add some system that allows customizing and fine tuning the playback, so that could be it (and the reason why these dev tools are included in the nightlies, but not in the betas)

As I said, this time I'll simply wait to see how everything unfolds. There's still so much opaqueness about everything concerning the new musesounds, and for now, the only thing I know for sure is that I can't create custom playback rules, and custom patches as I did with Staffpad. If they allow that, and even provide a GUI in order to make it easier and faster, I think the potential is huge, as I've already said in the past in other posts. I really don't want to be pessimistic about it... but honestly, I don't have any reasons to be optimistic either. Time will tell.

Anyhow, even if they keep it as a closed system, I have to admit that releasing these new musesounds libraries for free is a blessing for many musicians out there. No doubt my students are going to love it.

EDIT: Found the post where Tantacrul talked about this new mpe system. It's here


> _Our codename for the new system we are building is *MusePlaybackEvents*. It will be an open event format that ensures the utmost precision when detailing the data required for high-quality and realistic playback, without losing compatibility with *MIDI* and *VST*. As I mentioned already, this was not work we had originally planned to do for MuseScore 4 but as we continue to experiment with higher quality samplers, we have come to realise that MusePlaybackEvents is a necessary investment right now._


----------



## Cdnalsi

Any news on a native Apple Silicon build?


----------



## Jett Hitt

Here’s an interesting comparison video that I stumbled onto.


----------



## Noeticus




----------



## Noeticus




----------



## Noeticus

MuseScore 4 Release Candidate 1 Now Available


Another step closer to the final release… https://musescore.org/en/node/337494




vi-control.net


----------



## Chi

pinki said:


> I’ve been demoing Dorico, both Pro and Elements this month but I ended up going with Musescore 3.6 because it’s well, just so good.
> The engraving features in the latest version means I’m not sure its worth paying for a notation programme anymore.…and Dorico… it’s VERY expensive for the Pro version that has the engraving I need. I do think Elements offers excellent value for money however.
> 
> I really wanted to love Dorico but in the end it’s too complex, it lacks simplicity and elegance. Musescore is just so easy and straightforward to use. I don’t need DAW features, I need flow.


First of all, it all depends on what you need. I used Musescore for years and somehow made it work by going through a huge sf hassle. Regardless, even if you're just writing to export PDFs, Dorico's engraving mode destroys any other program. It's just so good. Also, as I feel like you're invariably going to want be able to make audio export as well, Dorico's DAW functions also trump the competition. Dorico elements is only $75 if you download the free version first and then upgrade. (I actually did get the free version, but I didn't know about the upgrade discount so I paid full price. Ouch.) I'd suggest getting Dorico. The workflow is a bit hard to get used to, but if I can, anyone can. Now, I love the way Dorico is set up and can't understand how I ever liked musescore.


----------



## Noeticus




----------



## Noeticus

It looks like MuseScore 4 has officially launched today.

🍷 🍷 🍷 🍷 🍷


----------



## Wensleydale

When I got Dorico in the recent sale I thought I’d never look back. It’s powerful, elegant and (mostly) logical. Once you’ve worked out how to do what you want to do, note input is very fast. But, having spent the last month struggling to do the simplest things, I‘m finding the idea of going back to MuseScore increasingly appealing. I remember being pleasantly surprised at how easy it was to get started with that.


----------



## Daryl

Wensleydale said:


> When I got Dorico in the recent sale I thought I’d never look back. It’s powerful, elegant and (mostly) logical. Once you’ve worked out how to do what you want to do, note input is very fast. But, having spent the last month struggling to do the simplest things, I‘m finding the idea of going back to MuseScore increasingly appealing. I remember being pleasantly surprised at how easy it was to get started with that.


Which things are you struggling with?


----------



## Wensleydale

Daryl said:


> Which things are you struggling with?


Right now, nothing much. I’ve got past the initial hurdles, like not knowing how to activate the program, or how to get any audio out of it. I’ve progressed to the point where I more or less know how to do the simple things that I need immediately — though in some cases they need third party workarounds (e.g. proper guitar notation, Roman numeral analysis) and in some cases they can’t be done (e.g. getting flow titles to appear in galley view). But every time I try to do something I haven’t done before, it takes me hours to work out how to do it. That was not my experience with MuseScore. Becoming a competent Dorico user will clearly require a _lot_ of hard work. Maybe it’s worth it. Maybe.


----------



## Daryl

1. Activating is very simple and a one time process.
2. Audio is just a matter of correct driver and routing. Again a one time process.
3. What do you need in Guitar notation that you can't do? I don't know what "proper" means. Sorry.
4. Yes, you do need a different font for Roman numerals
5. Flow titles do appear in Galley View. at the top of the screen.

Please feel free to ask if there are any more questions. I'm sure someone here will be able to help you, or go to the Stenberg Dorico forum, where again there will be lots of help.


----------



## Wensleydale

Daryl said:


> 1. Activating is very simple and a one time process.


It's simple once you know how to do it, but that isn't made especially clear.


Daryl said:


> 2. Audio is just a matter of correct driver and routing. Again a one time process.


There's a 17-minute video on YT about the many things that can go wrong. And actually I've had the audio disappear again, after the first time I fixed it.


Daryl said:


> 3. What do you need in Guitar notation that you can't do?


Barré notation with fret numbers. Pretty basic. There's at least one thread about this in the Dorico forum.


Daryl said:


> 5. Flow titles do appear in Galley View. at the top of the screen.


If you mean the title bar, that disappears in full screen; and it's no help when hunting for the flow you want to edit. Again, this has been discussed in the Dorico forum.

Thanks, but my purpose in posting was not to seek help with the issues I've struggled with: I've mostly solved those. My point was simply that I find MuseScore much easier to learn. That may well be because it's less powerful. But, for anyone who doesn't need Dorico's advanced engraving options, it _may_ be a more sensible choice.


----------



## zolhof

Wensleydale said:


> If you mean the title bar, that disappears in full screen; and it's no help when hunting for the flow you want to edit. Again, this has been discussed in the Dorico forum.


You can quickly jump to any flow in a layout with Go To Bar (ctrl+G or cmd+G):

View attachment gotobar.mp4


Alternatively, there are key commands for "Go to Previous/Next Flow".


----------



## Wensleydale

zolhof said:


> You can quickly jump to any flow in a layout with Go To Bar (ctrl+G or cmd+G):


I just used Go To to get to flow 37. Which one is 37?


----------



## zolhof

Wensleydale said:


> I just used Go To to get to flow 37. Which one is 37?


With multiple 1-bar flows, press ctrl+D to deselect any objects, then go to flow 37, and press ENTER to invoke the caret. Now you know you are in flow 37.

View attachment fs_flow.mp4


It's usually the left one, even if obstructed by the Notes panel, but you can make sure by invoking the caret. I also work in full screen, and agree they could implement a proper way to display flow labels in galley view so we get instant visual feedback. cc. @Daniel S.


----------



## Wensleydale

zolhof said:


> With multiple 1-bar flows, press ctrl+D to deselect any objects, then go to flow 37, and press ENTER to invoke the caret. Now you know you are in flow 37.


Thanks, that works. But having to go into Note Input mode just to see what is in a particular flow, even if you don't want to edit it, is neither logical nor intuitive.


zolhof said:


> It's usually the left one


In my example it was actually the middle one!


----------



## Noeticus




----------



## rudi

Thanks for posting that - it's super-impressive!!!


----------

