# Notation Programs...am I missing something?



## James W.G. Smith (Apr 4, 2007)

So I decided to start having proper notation for my scores and popped open my copy of Finale that has been dormant on my computer for awhile before. I already knew what a mess importing a MIDI from my sequencer would be, so I decided to just copy it note for note. The score that I was working with was a very simple one with no complex orchestration or anything.

Well, first thing I noticed was the the measures started going either too long or too short and that looked like crap, so I tried to move them around only to find out that Finale didn't want to move any measures to the next page. Well, great, I guess I can still try to work with that. For my 2 guitars, I had one in the treble clef and one in the bass clef, but they both played back in the treble clef and that was really starting to irk me. On top of this, simple things like brackets and such where driving me nuts, but I made it through to the end of the cue, put in my final barline and...there where empty measures left over. I tried to mess around with them but they wouldn't go away. Well, to me that looks really crappy so I thought, "Screw Finale, I'll try something else".

Well, I tried some different demos and they all had major problems, like there being no room to write articulations, things colliding with each other, and many other problems that would make the score look very, very bad. At this point I am thinking of walking away from music notation software, because what took me around 8 hours to not do right I could have done in 20 mins. with pen and paper. So am I missing something, or are they making these programs MUCH more difficult than they need to be? I just don't get it. If anyone knows of something better, let me know.

James


----------



## Daryl (Apr 4, 2007)

James W.G. Smith @ Wed Apr 04 said:


> So I decided to start having proper notation for my scores and popped open my copy of Finale that has been dormant on my computer for awhile before. I already knew what a mess importing a MIDI from my sequencer would be, so I decided to just copy it note for note. The score that I was working with was a very simple one with no complex orchestration or anything.
> 
> Well, first thing I noticed was the the measures started going either too long or too short and that looked like crap, so I tried to move them around only to find out that Finale didn't want to move any measures to the next page. Well, great, I guess I can still try to work with that. For my 2 guitars, I had one in the treble clef and one in the bass clef, but they both played back in the treble clef and that was really starting to irk me. On top of this, simple things like brackets and such where driving me nuts, but I made it through to the end of the cue, put in my final barline and...there where empty measures left over. I tried to mess around with them but they wouldn't go away. Well, to me that looks really crappy so I thought, "Screw Finale, I'll try something else".
> 
> ...


I use Sibelius all the time for my notation and it is very easy and intuitive. However, I do know that when people swap from Finale they tend to have rather a difficult time until they realise that you need to use the strengths of the program and not try to adapt it to your previous way of working. I assume that this will be the same with all notation programs, so I would say that your best bet is to find someone who is a whiz at one of the options and get them to demo it for you. FWIW I can orchestrate from scratch about 20 pages of full, complex orchestration in the amount of time that you were talking about.

D


----------



## James W.G. Smith (Apr 4, 2007)

Daryl @ Wed Apr 04 said:


> I use Sibelius all the time for my notation and it is very easy and intuitive. However, I do know that when people swap from Finale they tend to have rather a difficult time until they realise that you need to use the strengths of the program and not try to adapt it to your previous way of working. I assume that this will be the same with all notation programs, so I would say that your best bet is to find someone who is a whiz at one of the options and get them to demo it for you. FWIW I can orchestrate from scratch about 20 pages of full, complex orchestration in the amount of time that you were talking about.
> 
> D



The 8 hours or the 20 mins.? I remember trying out Sibelius a few years ago, but had some problems with that too (mainly spacing issues). Thing is, I'm not really going for speed (copying note for note is always going to take some time), but just wondering why are things are overly complicated in these programs? They really don't need to be, and just like a word processor you should be able to set up your scores any way you feel like it fairly easily. I won't ever actually write in a notation program, but when I need to have a clean, professional looking score printed, I kind of need to turn to these programs, mainly just to copy stuff over (I orchestrate while I compose, so no need to do that there either). Maybe I should try Sibelius again...thanks for your help man.

James

BTW, besides the loads of crappy little titles out there, is there any other big programs besides Finale and Sibelius?


----------



## Daryl (Apr 4, 2007)

Errrrrrrrrrr, the 8 hours. :lol: 

There are hardly any spacing issues with Sibelius that can't be solved with a couple of clicks.

You'll find that there are a fair number of users on this forum if you have specific questions, or if you prefer there is a dedicated Sibelius forum where you can get lots of input from company personnel as well as other experienced users.

D


----------



## Daryl (Apr 4, 2007)

I'm afraid that you are Stuck with Sibelius or Finale for professional looking notation. There are other programs, but either the output is not good enough, it takes too long to get it close to good enough, or it just takes too long....!

D


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Apr 14, 2007)

As a sibelius user i can say there is a definite learning curve and I am sure it is no different from Finale. It took me a while till i was comfortable in sibelius (I was an old Mosaic user) and even now i don't know it that well, just well enough to get by on it. That being said there are a few things to consider. I saw where you popped things in note for note, that should not be a huge issue once you have the program down, but it is tedious. 

Do you get VI mag? there was a great article by TJ about 9 months ago about porting your midi into sibelius (or other notation program). I used that article as my template for the pieces you heard yesterday. I know you are a tweaker but not familar with your orchestration or theory skills. I bring this up as once things were ported into notation I could see what I had in midi which sounded good but could be improved, ie...missing voices, unneccasary doubles, lines which were too stagnent etc. While this was useful for live it could also have improved my mockups if I wished to revisit them. Again the process is time consuming, quantizing of both front end and backend of notes takes a while but if a goal is to improve one's mockup by seeing the orchestrating, it can be rewarding. I highly advise not doing this in time crunch situations....


----------



## Jack Weaver (Apr 14, 2007)

Yeah Craig,

Those are really great points about being able to clearly visualize interior lines, missing or doubled voices, etc. That would be extremely useful.

I use Logic and exporting multiple tracks into Score creates an unsatisfying result (besides keyswitches don’t beautify the process) so it looks like I'll soon be ramping up better knowledge of the Sibelius that's been languishing on my disk for quite some time. 

Perhaps as time and situation permit I'll try exporting tracks from Logic into Pro Tools (then stripping key switches out) and trying out their new export to Sibelius function. Maybe that will create a fast-enough workflow. 

Has anybody on this forum tried this feature in Pro Tools? (Export to Sibelius 4) I’d like to hear something about the process before I decide to upgrade from version 3.

Basically looking for anything to speed up the process. 

Thanks,
Jack


----------



## Synesthesia (Apr 14, 2007)

Jack Weaver @ Sat Apr 14 said:


> Yeah Craig,
> 
> Those are really great points about being able to clearly visualize interior lines, missing or doubled voices, etc. That would be extremely useful.
> 
> ...



Works here like a dream Jack, I use the export to Sibelius all the time, you select the midi tracks you want to go and then its opens sibelius automatically.

Of course, you still have to tidy up and so on, but for quick n dirty printouts to see whats going on its great.

For orchestration, I have my export as one file (from midi) - it keeps all the track names etc - and then I have my actual score paper on another file, and I copy and paste from the midi generated one to the 'real' one, tidying and adding hairpins etc as I go.

I love Sibelius, especially 4 - its way way easier to get into than Finale. I always used Finale in the 90s, and then in 99 I was on the ASCAP workshop, and I had problems with my laptop and Finale, so I just bought Sibelius to do my cue on and I got it pretty quick.

The preset output of the parts I tend to increase the stave size a bit - I like to hand out nice big parts!

Also - and this is very important - I have had one or two small problems (eg: a cue time point I couldnt delete) and have had immediate joy on the phone line support - every problem is solved within a few minutes and I've never had to leave a message or be put on hold. o=< 

Cheers

Paul


----------



## Jack Weaver (Apr 14, 2007)

Thanks Paul,

Maybe I should get Sib4 & upgrade to PT 7.3 and try it out soon. I appeciate the info & help.


----------



## Braindrop (Apr 15, 2007)

I disagree that Finale and Sibelius are the only options. Overture absolutely kicks both their asses in handling VST orchestras, and makes beautiful output.


----------



## Thonex (Apr 15, 2007)

Braindrop @ Sun Apr 15 said:


> I disagree that Finale and Sibelius are the only options. Overture absolutely kicks both their asses in handling VST orchestras, and makes beautiful output.



Thanks for the tip Braindrop.

I found this (in red) interesting in their input feature list:


Input Methods

* Computer mouse
* Computer keyboard
* MIDI controller/keyboard real time and step time
 * * Import standard MIDI file, quantize each track differently*
* Import Encore and MusicTime files.
* Paste any .PICT into score (Mac Only)


This is my biggest beef with Sibelius is that there is no quantize. Does Overture allow you to quantize notes once they are already imported. Like.... if there is an 8th beamed to 2 16ths... can you quantize it as 3 triplets?

Thanks.

T


----------



## sbkp (Apr 15, 2007)

Thonex @ Sun Apr 15 said:


> This is my biggest beef with Sibelius is that there is no quantize.



cue fireworks.... 



On the Overture front, if Joseph Burrell is still around, he can probably answer most any question about it.


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Apr 15, 2007)

I definitley have a beef wth no quantize function in sibelius


----------



## Daryl (Apr 15, 2007)

Braindrop @ Sun Apr 15 said:


> I disagree that Finale and Sibelius are the only options. Overture absolutely kicks both their asses in handling VST orchestras, and makes beautiful output.


Overture is a very basic sequencer, not a notation program. I'm afraid that in professional circles the printed output is considered laughable. Of course, if that doesn't matter, you don't care, or you don't really know the difference......

D


----------



## Daryl (Apr 15, 2007)

sbkp @ Sun Apr 15 said:


> Thonex @ Sun Apr 15 said:
> 
> 
> > This is my biggest beef with Sibelius is that there is no quantize.
> ...


No fireworks needed. If people are too stupid (or dogmatic) to understand why, and what should be there instead, then that's their problem. :wink: :roll: 

D


----------



## Daryl (Apr 15, 2007)

Jack Weaver @ Sat Apr 14 said:


> Thanks Paul,
> 
> Maybe I should get Sib4 & upgrade to PT 7.3 and try it out soon. I appeciate the info & help.


The export to Sib is very basic ATM. Not really worth the upgrading, unless you want or need the features of Sib4.

D


----------



## Thonex (Apr 15, 2007)

Daryl @ Sun Apr 15 said:


> sbkp @ Sun Apr 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Thonex @ Sun Apr 15 said:
> ...



Did you just call me stupid and dogmatic? >8o


----------



## kape (Apr 15, 2007)

Anyway, if you decide to try Sibelius and don´t want to wade through the manual (it is much better laid out than Finale`s) there´s a new book by Thomas Rudolph and Vincent Leonard that I can recommend:"Sibelius - A Comprehensive Guide to Sibelius Music Notation Software". You can get it from Amazon.


----------



## Daryl (Apr 16, 2007)

Thonex @ Sun Apr 15 said:


> Daryl @ Sun Apr 15 said:
> 
> 
> > sbkp @ Sun Apr 15 said:
> ...


Nah, Craig's got it right..............! :mrgreen: 

D


----------



## Synesthesia (Apr 16, 2007)

Daryl @ Sun Apr 15 said:


> Jack Weaver @ Sat Apr 14 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Paul,
> ...



Daryl,

It may still be fairly basic, (is it? compared to what?) but its significantly more accurate than it was pre 7.3 using Protools midi export and then importing into Sib. I rarely dont get a usable import, whereas before Protools' export had all kind of weirdnesses in it.

I'd say that whereas Sib 4 is great and for me was a no brainer with all the new features, if you export from Protools as your main sequencer (which I do) then *if you already have Sibelius* upgrading Tools to 7.3 is an obvious step.

Cheers,

Paul


----------



## Daryl (Apr 16, 2007)

Synesthesia @ Mon Apr 16 said:


> Daryl @ Sun Apr 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Weaver @ Sat Apr 14 said:
> ...


The MIDI export is doing nothing except saving a few clicks. The fact that the export results are better than before is more connected to the fact that Digi has improved the MIDI handling in general, rather than this export feature doing anything clever.

What I was trying to say, albeit probably rather badly, was that unless you need the features of Sib 4, then by all means upgrade PT in order to get usable MIDI export, but upgrading both programs may not be worth the extra expense.

D


----------



## Jack Weaver (Apr 16, 2007)

Actually PT isn't my main sequencer I tend to use it only for mixing & recording audio. I use Logic for writing and sequencing & in this posting was asking whether exporting midi files from Logic to PT & then using the new export to Sib4 function would be worth the time and effort. 

I have Sib3 sitting on my drive since I first bought it some time back. I haven't really used it. (There's only so much time in each day to learn new software.) I know that I'm pretty dissatisfied with the Score function in Logic - especiially with all the keyswitch information I have in each track. 

What I really would like to do is be able to quickly check interior lines for visualization voicing consistancy as I write in MIDI on the Matrix - and on the odd occaision be able to print out an individual instrumental part. I don't really want to re-invent the wheel. I'd like to have something quickly available that can be asorbed into my workflow that doesn't require doing cartwheels. 

Thanks again.


----------



## Daryl (Apr 16, 2007)

I would say that there is no advantage in exporting from Logic via PT, although Sibelius 4 may be of some interest.

D


----------



## Synesthesia (Apr 16, 2007)

I would agree, the main advantage for me was that the midi export in Tools was not geared up to anything like as complex as (for example) exporting a one hour session with 150 midi tracks.

It still isn't great, but its a lot better and I dont have to use many of the hacks I used to have to, just to get some output.

So, if you are on 7.1 or 7.2, and you have Sib4, then 7.3 is a very useful upgrade.

FWIW, the RTAS performance of 7.3 is way better than 7.2, and theres loads of other useful little bits in there..

cheers,

Paul


----------



## James W.G. Smith (Apr 16, 2007)

Craig Sharmat @ Sat Apr 14 said:


> As a sibelius user i can say there is a definite learning curve and I am sure it is no different from Finale. It took me a while till i was comfortable in sibelius (I was an old Mosaic user) and even now i don't know it that well, just well enough to get by on it. That being said there are a few things to consider. I saw where you popped things in note for note, that should not be a huge issue once you have the program down, but it is tedious.
> 
> Do you get VI mag? there was a great article by TJ about 9 months ago about porting your midi into sibelius (or other notation program). I used that article as my template for the pieces you heard yesterday. I know you are a tweaker but not familar with your orchestration or theory skills. I bring this up as once things were ported into notation I could see what I had in midi which sounded good but could be improved, ie...missing voices, unneccasary doubles, lines which were too stagnent etc. While this was useful for live it could also have improved my mockups if I wished to revisit them. Again the process is time consuming, quantizing of both front end and backend of notes takes a while but if a goal is to improve one's mockup by seeing the orchestrating, it can be rewarding. I highly advise not doing this in time crunch situations....



Thanks a ton for all your input guys. It's funny about the "transitioning" from Finale to Sibelius, because I never really used it, just had it sitting around for a long time. The transitioning for me was from pen and paper. Anyhow, I tried out the Sib 4 demo and figured it out pretty quick. I think I can work with that one, so thanks for the tips. I just remember that I tried it years ago and got really confused so maybe I just didn't spend enough time looking around.

I actually don't get VI mag, so I didn't catch that article. I am honestly afraid of importing MIDI because after I import it, it's soooo messy and I hate that because it was nice and squeaky clean in my sequencer. I tried using my MIDI controller to play stuff in a couple of times, but the result was so bad I just use it to try and work out ideas, then write them out by hand. It might save me some time, importing that is, but I actually like having to transfer it note by note. I'm still not the fastest at reading music so I think copying each note helps me quite a bit in that regard, plus I have to think about the music in a different way, which is nice after staring the mock-up for hours.

Anyhow, I need to go write out a score I composed yesterday before I get too lazy to do it, so thanks again :D

James


----------



## José Herring (Apr 16, 2007)

James,

Often when I import midi files over to give to my copyist to make parts I'll "save as" my sequence. Then go through and razor quantize every bar also fixing the endings so that they match up properly. I also double check in my sequencer notator for weird things and fix those. I'll also collapse all the different midi tracks for the same instrument down to one track per instrument. That way when it imports it looks fairly good.

This whole processes by the way on takes about 1 hour and is well worth it if you're going to import over midi files for notation. I just call it "X" cue notation file or something to distinguish it from the demo or actually music sequence.

best,

Jose


----------



## jc5 (Apr 23, 2007)

Speaking as a long time Finale user, I generally find it advisable not to worry about spacing until _after_ you are done entering all the notes for your score. First get the music in, then worry about 'making it pretty' - the work of an engraver (who I would have permanently on call if I could afford it  ). I would advise working in the scroll view when entering a score or composing - this is a great strength of Finale, it makes it much more streamlined.

I compose straight to notation 90% of the time as I find it ten times faster and more efficient.. I tried Sibelius a little while ago and wasn't too pleased with it for that purpose - the fact that your locked to a page view and have no scroll view to work with is a pain. Composing to a page view that needs to be flipped is very unintuitive in my personal opinion compared to having a scroll view that actually scrolls as you go along. With a nice big monitor, its a joy to work on even the densest of symphonic works.

My two cents.


----------



## David A (Feb 16, 2008)

Apples and Oranges. I find Finale to be complicated in the exact opposite way. 

Sibelius however after learning is incredibly helpful.

Dave A.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 17, 2008)

Daryl @ Sun 17 Feb said:


> jc5 @ Mon Apr 23 said:
> 
> 
> > I compose straight to notation 90% of the time as I find it ten times faster and more efficient.. I tried Sibelius a little while ago and wasn't too pleased with it for that purpose - the fact that your locked to a page view and have no scroll view to work with is a pain. Composing to a page view that needs to be flipped is very unintuitive in my personal opinion compared to having a scroll view that actually scrolls as you go along.
> ...


As I see it, Jc5 was mainly objecting that, in the version he was working in, there was no scroll-view in Sibelius. Now there is one? Starting with which version?


----------



## Thonex (Feb 17, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Feb 17 said:


> As I see it, Jc5 was mainly objecting that, in the version he was working in, there was no scroll-view in Sibelius. Now there is one? Starting with which version?



Sibelius 5 I believe.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 18, 2008)

Thonex @ Mon Feb 18 said:


> aeneas @ Sun Feb 17 said:
> 
> 
> > As I see it, Jc5 was mainly objecting that, in the version he was working in, there was no scroll-view in Sibelius. Now there is one? Starting with which version?
> ...


Correct. Or, if you want to go back to the Acorn days, Sibelius 7. :lol: 

D


----------

