# Why Dorico?



## jsnleo

I see lots of people in here love Dorico. I tried it a few months ago and wanted to like it because Cubase was the first DAW I’ve ever used and I’ve been using it since then, but unfortunately I didn’t like Dorico. But because of the current sale I bought it, crossgrade price is only $140.

And I just tried to use it but I still don’t know why so many people like it. Adding instruments wore me out. I had to add them one by one and couldn’t keep the dialog open. I know I can use “add ensemble” but if what I want is not on the list, then it doesn’t make it any easier. Then editing instrument names made me cry... Adding instruments in Sibelius is way faster, so is changing names. It really slowed me down...

After I finished adding instruments I wanted, because there were so many instruments I had to manually adjusting the page size and spacings. But Sibelius changes it automatically. After that, I closed it. I got so tired...

Anyway, I’m not here to bash it. I just wanna know how you guys use it because I really wanna like it. It looks better than Sibelius, and it’s from Steinberg, so I have really high hopes for it. I believe Dorico was designed by the same people who worked on Sibelius, but why make it less efficient? I guess you guys normally import projects into it so you don’t have to deal with the things I mentioned?


----------



## Woodie1972

Coming from Finale, I first ran into the same issues you mention, especially adding instruments could be much easier and less time consuming and which is still at the same level as Dorico 2 was. So yes, there's some room for improvement.

But once you have done this and start entering notes in the score and get more used to Dorico, you will find out there are a lot of things which make working with Dorico pretty fast. A lot of shortcuts are available, adding notes, changing pitches, entering dynamics, change playback, the expression maps and so on, are really helping to work faster.
I use both Dorico and Cubase, the main thing I run into is that a lot of key commands are different, so making mistakes is very likely, simply because you press a key command and something totally different is happening than you expect.

For me there were two main reasons to switch to Dorico:
1) lay-out; creating parts in Finale, especially long pieces with a lot of notes and text, were a hell of a job and could take several days to finish, even with some good default settings
2) playback: with Dorico you can edit playback more like in a DAW, which is great for creating some pretty good sounding mock-ups. Most major DAW's will beat Dorico of course, because there are much better options to mix and create a good balance, but it's absolutely not bad and much easier to accompish than in Finale, at least for me.

My hope is that there will be an integrated version of Cubase and Dorico in the future, with all advantages of a great DAW combined with the options of a good notation program. Last year there was an official Steinberg survey about it, never heard anything about it after then, but I still hope this will happen someday.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna

Perhaps revisit your opinion after you've performed more than 2 tasks


----------



## Bollen

jsnleo said:


> I see lots of people in here love Dorico. I tried it a few months ago and wanted to like it because Cubase was the first DAW I’ve ever used and I’ve been using it since then, but unfortunately I didn’t like Dorico. But because of the current sale I bought it, crossgrade price is only $140.
> 
> And I just tried to use it but I still don’t know why so many people like it. Adding instruments wore me out. I had to add them one by one and couldn’t keep the dialog open. I know I can use “add ensemble” but if what I want is not on the list, then it doesn’t make it any easier. Then editing instrument names made me cry... Adding instruments in Sibelius is way faster, so is changing names. It really slowed me down...
> 
> After I finished adding instruments I wanted, because there were so many instruments I had to manually adjusting the page size and spacings. But Sibelius changes it automatically. After that, I closed it. I got so tired...
> 
> Anyway, I’m not here to bash it. I just wanna know how you guys use it because I really wanna like it. It looks better than Sibelius, and it’s from Steinberg, so I have really high hopes for it. I believe Dorico was designed by the same people who worked on Sibelius, but why make it less efficient? I guess you guys normally import projects into it so you don’t have to deal with the things I mentioned?


Well I can totally relate to what you just said, that was exactly my first experience. Fortunately, eventually you build enough templates so that you just remove instruments instead of adding them and that's considerably faster!

I moved from Sibelius, but not in one go. I bought it and then I would spend a couple of hours on the weekend, or days off, and it took me a year and a half or two to make it my main program. For me the time saved working on parts and layouts completely makes up for the extra time setting up. Also, just like Woodie, I prefer to do my mockups whilst looking at a score and the only two other programs out there that could do that, one was joke and the other one a toy...


----------



## jsnleo

Woodie1972 said:


> Coming from Finale, I first ran into the same issues you mention, especially adding instruments could be much easier and less time consuming and which is still at the same level as Dorico 2 was. So yes, there's some room for improvement.
> 
> But once you have done this and start entering notes in the score and get more used to Dorico, you will find out there are a lot of things which make working with Dorico pretty fast. A lot of shortcuts are available, adding notes, changing pitches, entering dynamics, change playback, the expression maps and so on, are really helping to work faster.
> I use both Dorico and Cubase, the main thing I run into is that a lot of key commands are different, so making mistakes is very likely, simply because you press a key command and something totally different is happening than you expect.
> 
> For me there were two main reasons to switch to Dorico:
> 1) lay-out; creating parts in Finale, especially long pieces with a lot of notes and text, were a hell of a job and could take several days to finish, even with some good default settings
> 2) playback: with Dorico you can edit playback more like in a DAW, which is great for creating some pretty good sounding mock-ups. Most major DAW's will beat Dorico of course, because there are much better options to mix and create a good balance, but it's absolutely not bad and much easier to accompish than in Finale, at least for me.
> 
> My hope is that there will be an integrated version of Cubase and Dorico in the future, with all advantages of a great DAW combined with the options of a good notation program. Last year there was an official Steinberg survey about it, never heard anything about it after then, but I still hope this will happen someday.



Thanks. I guess I’ll have to be patient and try it again. I tried nearly all notation softwares and decided I’d either stick with Sibelius or switch to Dorico, and I really wanted it to be Dorico.


----------



## jsnleo

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> Perhaps revisit your opinion after you've performed more than 2 tasks



That’s the problem. I lost my patience even before entering notes.


----------



## jsnleo

Bollen said:


> Well I can totally relate to what you just said, that was exactly my first experience. Fortunately, eventually you build enough templates so that you just remove instruments instead of adding them and that's considerably faster!
> 
> I moved from Sibelius, but not in one go. I bought it and then I would spend a couple of hours on the weekend, or days off, and it took me a year and a half or two to make it my main program. For me the time saved working on parts and layouts completely makes up for the extra time setting up. Also, just like Woodie, I prefer to do my mockups whilst looking at a score and the only two other programs out there that could do that, one was joke and the other one a toy...



Cool. Now that you’ve been using it, do you think it works faster and better than Sibelius?


----------



## mducharme

FYI, the add ensemble button adds the ensemble in addition to what you already have. For instance if you want a piano quintet and there is no option for that, you could add a string quartet as an ensemble and then a piano as a single instrument.


----------



## Mackieguy

For me as a Sibelius user, it was all about ease of playback. Being able to EASILY create custom and very detailed expression maps was a huge factor in motivating me to learn the absolutely alien way of thinking about “Flows”. But after a few times of working with it, it started to make some sense. If playback is important to you, I highly recommend toughing it out until you get it. It felt like a gigantic weight was lifted from my shoulders when I no longer had to deal with custom sound sets and a surprising limited playback dictionary. ESPECIALLY when it came to library-specific articulation changes.


----------



## sinkd

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> Perhaps revisit your opinion after you've performed more than 2 tasks


I think that the OP is here genuinely to ask for reassurance and support to keep trying. Not to bash Dorico. 

It is still easier for me to do a few things in Finale than in Dorico, but the more I persist, the more I learn all of the things that Dorico does better. One really important step was learning to stop fighting the Engraver window and use standard allotments. It's like having a pro doing your part copywork for you!


----------



## sinkd

jsnleo said:


> That’s the problem. I lost my patience even before entering notes.


The first handful of times I opened Dorico, I gave up in frustration too. Too many hard-wired Finale neural pathways... But I have found it is worth it especially for preparing orchestra and chamber music scores and parts.


----------



## Leigh

jsnleo said:


> Thanks. I guess I’ll have to be patient and try it again. I tried nearly all notation softwares and decided I’d either stick with Sibelius or switch to Dorico, and I really wanted it to be Dorico.



Get a used regular StreamDeck on Ebay and then Notation Express from Notation Central and give yourself a week after which you will be flying!

**Leigh


----------



## Sean

I tried to switch from Finale to Dorico and gave up. I feel like too many habits are ingrained in me by Finale and Dorico is too different. Maybe in a year I'll try again.


----------



## MrCambiata

If you want minimum of corrections in the parts after finishing your score, go for Dorico.


----------



## Eric G

FOR ME, The DAW back end is worth all the effort on the front end. MIDI,CC, and articulation editing in a few years it will be essentially Cubase. The level of detail on the playback is a game changer and its going to get better. I have been with Dorico from the beginning and what kept me patient was the promise of DAW level playback and tweaking.

I love Notation and hate working in MIDI in DAWs.

My dream has always been to have the possibility to have a UNIQUE sample playing for each NOTE during a musical line without have to program key switches or touch MIDI. You need two things a DETAILED SAMPLE LIBRARY and a SOPHISTICATED playback engine that allowed me to control what SAMPLE to be played by DIVISI, DURATION, ARTICULATION, DYNAMICS, SPEED of play. Dorico does this today (as of the 3.5 release). And allows me full MIDI, CONTROLLER access on top of it.

So if you are in it for just notation editing, I don't see why you came over. Your efficiency in Finale and Sibelius will trump whatever you find in Dorico. You have to want more than just typing in notes.


----------



## Rob

Dorico has become indispensable for my job... or, more precisely, it allows me to work in less time, more pleasantly, and with superior results. Doing very refined orchestral renderings still requires a daw (so far) but for good and speedy jobs, where you don't need the minute details while still getting a professional sound, the ability to mix notation and working with libraries and fx of Dorico are perfect. So for me Dorico isn't a replacement for Finale or Sib, which I still use, but a unique program that fills a gap in the musical software world


----------



## jsnleo

Thanks everyone. So I guess the biggest pro of Dorico is more about playback? If I’m only enter notes and exporting PDFs then it’s not necessarily superior to the other two and I’m wasting it?


----------



## dcoscina

jsnleo said:


> That’s the problem. I lost my patience even before entering notes.


Don't fret. That was my initial reaction when I moved from Sibelius. Now I find Sibelius a complete PITA compared to Dorico. But you have to come to it on your own time and terms. I think you will get a lot of value out of it but I wouldn't say it's a smooth transition from other notation programs...

I also used Notion a lot prior to Dorico... and Passport Encore years ago.. wow, that dates me. eh?


----------



## Sean

jsnleo said:


> Thanks everyone. So I guess the biggest pro of Dorico is more about playback? If I’m only enter notes and exporting PDFs then it’s not necessarily superior to the other two and I’m wasting it?


From what I heard I thought Dorico is also great for engraving, making good looking parts with little hassle.


----------



## Thundercat

jsnleo said:


> Thanks everyone. So I guess the biggest pro of Dorico is more about playback? If I’m only enter notes and exporting PDFs then it’s not necessarily superior to the other two and I’m wasting it?


Dorico generally does a better job "out of the box" without much tweaking than the other programs. Generally, not always. I've been very pleased with scores I created with it, and playback is not my current forte. I almost said "piano is not my forte" 

Anyway, I struggle with the thing. I like it, and I also think they need to rethink their whole menu system. I don't personally want a shortcut for every thing. I like shortcuts, but not as the only method. The Tantacrul video is absolutely spot on and anyone who says differently is a keyboard wizard.

Good luck,

Mike


----------



## jsnleo

dcoscina said:


> Don't fret. That was my initial reaction when I moved from Sibelius. Now I find Sibelius a complete PITA compared to Dorico. But you have to come to it on your own time and terms. I think you will get a lot of value out of it but I wouldn't say it's a smooth transition from other notation programs...
> 
> I also used Notion a lot prior to Dorico... and Passport Encore years ago.. wow, that dates me. eh?



I think it'll be much easier if I create a template, but it's still harder to change names in Dorico, can't double click and doesn't have a plugin to do that. I know I'm making this such a big deal but I just don't understand why they missed it. I made feature requests on the forum and hopefully they can do something about it.


----------



## Bollen

jsnleo said:


> Cool. Now that you’ve been using it, do you think it works faster and better than Sibelius?


Considerably! Ten times faster at least... And to address your other post, I'm just talking notation! The playback is a definite bonus and the reason I even considered Dorico, but I would have been convinced by the notation side alone. Condensing score, bare if any engraving editing, score correction, moving events, I could go on. Everything is faster (especially with large orchestras), smoother, more logical and flexible, but I remind you, it took me a couple of years learning to use it on my free time before making the permanent move..


----------



## Eric G

jsnleo said:


> Thanks everyone. So I guess the biggest pro of Dorico is more about playback? If I’m only enter notes and exporting PDFs then it’s not necessarily superior to the other two and I’m wasting it?



Again, others could argue about the notation, which I love BTW as a former Sibelius user, but I won't argue with a person that may have 10 years of muscle memory with another program. Tools are about productivity, so I can see why anyone may have a problem seeing their productivity slip.

To each his own. But from a playback perspective its just not close and with each release it begins to compete with Cubase.


----------



## Eric G

jsnleo said:


> I think it'll be much easier if I create a template, but it's still harder to change names in Dorico, can't double click and doesn't have a plugin to do that. I know I'm making this such a big deal but I just don't understand why they missed it. I made feature requests on the forum and hopefully they can do something about it.


Change names? For Example?


----------



## jsnleo

Thundercat said:


> Dorico generally does a better job "out of the box" without much tweaking than the other programs. Generally, not always. I've been very pleased with scores I created with it, and playback is not my current forte. I almost said "piano is not my forte"
> 
> Anyway, I struggle with the thing. I like it, and I also think they need to rethink their whole menu system. I don't personally want a shortcut for every thing. I like shortcuts, but not as the only method. The Tantacrul video is absolutely spot on and anyone who says differently is a keyboard wizard.
> 
> Good luck,
> 
> Mike



OMG I'm watching it and yes it's definitely spot on! I forgot that if I add ww section after string section I have to move them to the top manually but Sibelius does the job for you.


----------



## jsnleo

Eric G said:


> Change names? For Example?



Let's say my template has 1 piccolo and 2 flutes and I named them Piccolo and Flutes 1-2, but if my project only needs 1 flute instead, deleting piccolo can be easily done, but I have to click the drop down menu and then click ">", "edit names" and change it from Flutes 1-2 to Flute, am I doing it right? In Sibelius I can just change the name by double clicking, or use the plugin "edit instrument names".


----------



## Eric G

jsnleo said:


> Let's say my template has 1 piccolo and 2 flutes and I named them Piccolo and Flutes 1-2, but if my project only needs 1 flute instead, deleting piccolo can be easily done, but I have to click the drop down menu and then click ">", "edit names" and change it from Flutes 1-2 to Flute, am I doing it right? In Sibelius I can just change the name by double clicking, or use the plugin "edit instrument names".



Dorico has a hierarchy that is based on PLAYERS not INSTRUMENTS. Sibelius is based on Instruments or Staves.

There is no concept of an ENSEMBLE except in Strings. Although you can approach it this way you lead up to having to do what you are doing editing "Flute 1-2"

So a Dorico user would create Flute 1, Flute 2 and Piccolo. THREE PLAYERS. If they wanted just one Flute, they would delete Flute 2 PLAYER.

You can assign more that one INSTRUMENT to a PLAYER. So Flute 1 and Flute 2 can be held by the same PLAYER and SWITCHED (i.e. "to Flute 2") on the Staff. But only ONE can PLAY at a time. This is similar to a PERCUSSION player.

So think Player, not Staff or Instrument. I know this will be another WTF but its critical for you to understand.

Watch this video to help:


----------



## Sean

Thundercat said:


> The Tantacrul video is absolutely spot on and anyone who says differently is a keyboard wizard.


As a developer, Tantacrul had me crying from laughter during parts of that video. And it was totally accurate about all my problems with Dorico as well!


----------



## Thundercat

Sean said:


> As a developer, Tantacrul had me crying from laughter during parts of that video. And it was totally accurate about all my problems with Dorico as well!


In all fairness, Dorico is a huge magnificent achievement. Yet it could use some serious work on the GUI.


----------



## Sean

Thundercat said:


> In all fairness, Dorico is a huge magnificent achievement. Yet it could use some serious work on the GUI.


Agreed, I really want to like it. It just isn't there yet for me, maybe they will continue to improve and I'll switch eventually. Since I'm only composing for fun and not printing music/engraving professionally, I don't feel like I benefit a ton from a lot of the pros to Dorico. If they solve some of the issues I have with note input and UI, then I will probably switch.


----------



## Thundercat

Sean said:


> Agreed, I really want to like it. It just isn't there yet for me, maybe they will continue to improve and I'll switch eventually. Since I'm only composing for fun and not printing music/engraving professionally, I don't feel like I benefit a ton from a lot of the pros to Dorico. If they solve some of the issues I have with note input and UI, then I will probably switch.


Yup. A user from Day 1, but not everyday, I still grit my teeth every time I open it...I've got to learn all the key commands, because the devs seem very stubborn and married to their current course.


----------



## jsnleo

Eric G said:


> Dorico has a hierarchy that is based on PLAYERS not INSTRUMENTS. Sibelius is based on Instruments or Staves.
> 
> There is no concept of an ENSEMBLE except in Strings. Although you can approach it this way you lead up to having to do what you are doing editing "Flute 1-2"
> 
> So a Dorico user would create Flute 1, Flute 2 and Piccolo. THREE PLAYERS. If they wanted just one Flute, they would delete Flute 2 PLAYER.
> 
> You can assign more that one INSTRUMENT to a PLAYER. So Flute 1 and Flute 2 can be held by the same PLAYER and SWITCHED (i.e. "to Flute 2") on the Staff. But only ONE can PLAY at a time. This is similar to a PERCUSSION player.
> 
> So think Player, not Staff or Instrument. I know this will be another WTF but its critical for you to understand.
> 
> Watch this video to help:




So if I wanna two flutes I should add two flute players? Doesn't it create two staves? Is it possible to have two players share one staff?


----------



## MauroPantin

jsnleo said:


> So if I wanna two flutes I should add two flute players? Doesn't it create two staves? Is it possible to have two players share one staff?



There is an option to condense parts for conductor scores, whilst keeping them separated for part extraction. Haven't used Dorico much yet, but this alone saves so much time and headaches like you wouldn't believe. I'd rather spend a few more minutes putting the ensemble together and setting up the sscore than hours proofing parts on the backend.


----------



## Eric G

jsnleo said:


> So if I wanna two flutes I should add two flute players? Doesn't it create two staves? Is it possible to have two players share one staff?



Yes. Create two players. Remember Dorico has Condensing in the PAGE VIEW where it combines both players notes on one Stave.

BUT you can't enter notes in the PAGE VIEW on one Staves only in the GALLEY VIEW where both Staves will show.

IF you do want to enter both on the same STAFF then create two voices (i.e. one Up Stem and one Down stem) But the playback becomes slightly more complicated. So let me know


----------



## jsnleo

Yeah I guess I'll stick with Sibelius and wait. I wanted to say Dorico still has a long way to go in some respects but I was afraid of being attacked... Update price is ok especially when it's on sale, I'll keep updating it and maybe one day it suddenly becomes my favorite notation software.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna

I find it so difficult to believe that a group of professional adults cant manage to remember
Shift+C = Clef
Shift+M = Metre
Shift+B = Bars
Shift+D = Dynamics
Shift+F = Fingering
Shift+I = Intervals
AND SO ON

To be honest I hope they do not listen to this sort of feedback because Dorico is incredibly fast to use in its current state.

There's plenty wrong with Dorico, but this ain't it.

I spent so many years on Sibelius and it was the worst piece of bloatware I have ever had the displeasure of using. To compare Dorico (the layout, really??) to that is quite insane.

I've attached a PDF for pop-overs. It's very enlightening if you wanna read instead of just assuming you automatically know how a program works just because.


----------



## Thundercat

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> I find it so difficult to believe that a group of professional adults cant manage to remember
> Shift+C = Clef
> Shift+M = Metre
> Shift+B = Bars
> Shift+D = Dynamics
> Shift+F = Fingering
> Shift+I = Intervals
> AND SO ON
> 
> To be honest I hope they do not listen to this sort of feedback because Dorico is incredibly fast to use in its current state.
> 
> There's plenty wrong with Dorico, but this ain't it.
> 
> I spent so many years on Sibelius and it was the worst piece of bloatware I have ever had the displeasure of using. To compare Dorico to that is quite insane.
> 
> I've attached a PDF for pop-overs. It's very enlightening if you can be arsed reading instead of just assuming you automatically know how a program works just because.


Wow, you obviously don't know how adults use software mate. I teach software for 30 years - and people like and prefer both mouse and keyboard methods of input. Some prefer one to another. Good you like keyboard shortcuts.

When the GUI is very difficult to find things, then this disenfranchises a lot of users out of the gate. And yes, "this IS it" - one of the big "its" for a lot people. Not you, cool. But to a lot of other users, yes, this IS it.

And fixing the GUI would not take away the shortcuts or change how you work; it would enhance the user experience for others. Sigh.

Anyway, before you scold everyone who prefers a different way of working, just realize we are not all you.  I'm glad it works as-is for you. Thousands of other users would beg to differ, such that an entire hour-long parody of the GUI was made and that most find hilarious and enlightening.

Mike


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna

s


Thundercat said:


> Wow, you obviously don't know how adults use software mate. I teach software for 30 years - and people like and prefer both mouse and keyboard methods of input. Some prefer one to another. Good you like keyboard shortcuts.
> 
> When the GUI is very difficult to find things, then this disenfranchises a lot of users out of the gate. And yes, "this IS it" - one of the big "its" for a lot people. Not you, cool. But to a lot of other users, yes, this IS it.
> 
> And fixing the GUI would not take away the shortcuts. Sigh.
> 
> Anyway, before you scold everyone who prefers a different way of working, just realize we are not all you.  I'm glad it work as-is for you. Thousands of other users would beg to differ, such than an entire hour-long parody of the GUI was made and that most find hilarious and enlightening.
> 
> Mike


I'm sorry, are we suggesting that Sibelius is easier to navigate than Dorico?

That video was reliant on the BS notion that software should just be usable without any effort to learn - what rubbish. You couldn't have someone schedule a paid post on facebook without doing research let alone a piece of professional software.

You couldn't do it with Photoshop nor Maya, nor AfterFX nor Premier Pro, nor Wwise, nor Cubase yet they are all on the professional market and incredibly successful.

To be honest, this has frustrated me because you've all walked into someone elses house and demanded that they cater for you without (judging by the posts) bothering to make an effort to learn even some simple commands.


----------



## Eric G

jsnleo said:


> Yeah I guess I'll stick with Sibelius and wait. I wanted to say Dorico still has a long way to go in some respects but I was afraid of being attacked... Update price is ok especially when it's on sale, I'll keep updating it and maybe one day it suddenly becomes my favorite notation software.


You have to do what is best for YOU and your productivity. Best of luck.


----------



## Thundercat

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> s
> 
> I'm sorry, are we suggesting that Sibelius is easier to navigate than Dorico?
> 
> That video was reliant on the BS notion that software should just be usable without any effort to learn - what rubbish. You couldn't have someone schedule a paid post on facebook without doing research let alone a piece of professional software.
> 
> You couldn't do it with Photoshop nor Maya, nor AfterFX nor Premier Pro, nor Wwise yet they are all on the professional market and incredibly successful.
> 
> To be honest, this has frustrated me because you've all walked into someone elses house and demanded that they cater for you without (judging by your posts) bothering to make an effort to learn even some simple commands.


Well man, peace, agree to disagree. The more intuitive software is, the easier it is to use.

Seriously, cool you're happy with it, I have no beef with you.

Oh I also have taught Photoshop since 1990 and it's HELLA difficult for newbies. You know what's super easy? The Photoshop Elements "dummy" version of Photoshop. It's shockingly powerful, and yet everything is so clear and easy to use. So, jmo, software absolutely can and should be designed to be intuitive and easy even for newbies.

It's not a club or a rite of passage to use difficult stuff. It's supposed to support the user, not be a badge of honor that they understand it.

But again, we have different perspectives. Thanks for sharing yours.

Mike


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna

Thundercat said:


> Well man, peace, agree to disagree. The more intuitive software is, the easier it is to use.
> 
> Seriously, cool you're happy with it, I have no beef with you.
> 
> Oh I also have taught Photoshop since 1990 and it's HELLA difficult for newbies. You know what's super easy? The Photoshop Elements "dummy" version of Photoshop. It's shockingly powerful, and yet everything is so clear and easy to use. So, jmo, software absolutely can and should be designed to be intuitive and easy even for newbies.
> 
> It's not a club or a rite of passage to use difficult stuff. It's supposed to support the user, not be a badge of honor that they understand it.
> 
> But again, we have different perspectives. Thanks for sharing yours.
> 
> Mike


I agree in theory and certainly for end user apps (end user apps should be braindead-proof), but intuition is based on prior experience so it _can _be meaningless.

If however, you put in the effort to learn the ideas and advances a developer puts forth and it still feels unintuitive then that's another matter.

Why do I care? Because id rather not have the software I use professionally to become bloated with "user friendly" menus and superfluous tabs or overhauled to be less efficient but more "friendly" because new users CBF reading the manual.


----------



## jsnleo

Well since I'm new to Dorico, please ignore my opinion if you don't agree. I think most of the Dorico shortcuts are just initials, right? To me that's a little bit easier to remember but I do think remembering shortcuts can be frustrating. I remember when I was studying audio engineering one of my instructors, who is a Grammy nominated engineer btw, used Pro Tools like a toy, but he can't remember any of the shortcuts. He told us that he couldn't remember them and also didn't need to. Sorry I guess it depends, sometimes shortcuts make things easier and sometimes they don't.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna

jsnleo said:


> Well since I'm new to Dorico, please ignore my opinion if you don't agree. I think most of the Dorico shortcuts are just initials, right? To me that's a little bit easier to remember but I do think remembering shortcuts can be frustrating. I remember when I was studying audio engineering one of my instructors, who is a Grammy nominated engineer btw, used Pro Tools like a toy, but he can't remember any of the shortcuts. He told us that he couldn't remember them and also didn't need to. Sorry I guess it depends, sometimes shortcuts make things easier and sometimes they don't.


If you are interested in learning how to use dorico, I'd recommend having that PDF open side by side as it will help a lot (Not with the start page or the dismal play page). Actually there should be a 3.5 version somewhere.


----------



## ptram

Eric G said:


> Dorico has a hierarchy that is based on PLAYERS not INSTRUMENTS. Sibelius is based on Instruments or Staves.



It's a matter of changing names, not instruments. The way Dorico does it (one at a time, mousing around, clicking a tiny >, not being able to moving with Tab, text selection working in an alien way on a Mac) is not the most comfortable way. A table view, like the one shown for Sibelius, would make changing names much faster.

In general, the real issue with Dorico is how everything is broken into parts, with no way to have an overview on how things are linked. Take the playing technique -> playback technique -> expression map entry chain as an example, or the mysterious way all these are contained in endpoint configurations, that you can no longer access after saving.

Dorico is revolutionary, is innovative and, on a personal note, what I have been waiting for for my whole life. But there is still a wide margin for improvement in the UI. Sort of a higher accessibility level not yet fully implemented.

Paolo


----------



## ptram

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> I find it so difficult to believe that a group of professional adults cant manage to remember



I would also add that shortcuts can all be easily redefined to taste. It would be easy to make a set similar to that of other programs.

Paolo


----------



## sinkd

Eric G said:


> Dorico has a hierarchy that is based on PLAYERS not INSTRUMENTS. Sibelius is based on Instruments or Staves.
> 
> There is no concept of an ENSEMBLE except in Strings. Although you can approach it this way you lead up to having to do what you are doing editing "Flute 1-2"
> 
> So a Dorico user would create Flute 1, Flute 2 and Piccolo. THREE PLAYERS. If they wanted just one Flute, they would delete Flute 2 PLAYER.
> 
> You can assign more that one INSTRUMENT to a PLAYER. So Flute 1 and Flute 2 can be held by the same PLAYER and SWITCHED (i.e. "to Flute 2") on the Staff. But only ONE can PLAY at a time. This is similar to a PERCUSSION player.
> 
> So think Player, not Staff or Instrument. I know this will be another WTF but its critical for you to understand.
> 
> Watch this video to help:



This takes some getting used to, but it is a better system. In the piece I am working on, there are two clarinet players, each doubling A clarinet. So in galley view I see 4 staves (two Bb lines, two A lines), but in page view they just switch back and forth on the same staff. BRILLIANT. Same with flute 2/piccolo. Galley view is where you will see all of your "instruments" individually.


----------



## cmillar

I can appreciate the separation of Engraver mode from Write mode the more I adapt to Dorico. If I need to move some text or or other object to where I’d like to have it, then I know it’ll stay there and that the rest of the staff and page spacing will make automatic adjustments that used to take so much extra time. 

Then I can get back to Writing knowing that things ‘have been taken care of’ without future fussing around.

Plus, StreamDeck is fantastic to have.


----------



## sinkd

cmillar said:


> I can appreciate the separation of Engraver mode from Write mode the more I adapt to Dorico. If I need to move some text or or other object to where I’d like to have it, then I know it’ll stay there and that the rest of the staff and page spacing will make automatic adjustments that used to take so much extra time.
> 
> Then I can get back to Writing knowing that things ‘have been taken care of’ without future fussing around.
> 
> Plus, StreamDeck is fantastic to have.


Can you tell us more about how you use streamdeck with Dorico? I am slowly getting used to the general workflow of keeping my hands on the keypad, except sometimes when I am entering notes. What commands do you map to streamdeck?


----------



## cmillar

sinkd said:


> Can you tell us more about how you use streamdeck with Dorico? I am slowly getting used to the general workflow of keeping my hands on the keypad, except sometimes when I am entering notes. What commands do you map to streamdeck?


Yes, I started with the ‘Dorico Express for StreamPad‘ which is available from the Scoringnotes website. Inexpensive but priceless.

They have a great series of layouts already to use, and you may not have to customize them at all.

But what I did was to change some things around, such as move the ‘dot’ key to where I don’t have to cross-fingers and get all ‘tied up’. (...I keep my left hand on StreamDeck and right hand on my MIDI keyboard)

And I replaced the ‘32nd’ note with something I use more often. (if I need to type in a 32nd note, which is rarely, then I’ll use my computer numberpad)

I also put in two hot keys for moving the carpet forwards or backwards right on my main StreamDeck screen.

And you can always make further changes, or set up custom screens dedicated to just doing formatting and final editing, etc etc

Many possibilities! Love this thing.


----------



## Pappaus

Like Sean, I write as a hobby not as a profession. I have both as I piggybacked from Notion to Sibelius to Dorico on various cross grades. It takes a mental shift to switch but I feel it is worth it as Dorico seems to be an active evolving product more than Sibelius is. Steinberg seems more interested in Dorico then Avid is with Sibelius.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

I find Dorico much faster to work with than Sibelius. The key commands + keyboard entry + MIDI entry allow me to knock out note entry extremely quickly. Perhaps Sibelius would be as fast, but when I was using it consistently, it was not. I also detest Avid's model of subscriptions these days (not to mention when I tried Sibelius again on my machine, it wouldn't even start up). Dorico's BBCSO playback template is also wonderful for me to use. And if any notation software is going to get more closely integrated with Cubase, it's going to be Dorico, so I'm betting on that.


----------



## Bollen

Streamdeck is a no brainer... I've never had to worry about shortcuts!





If anybody wants the profile (for both regular and XL) I'll upload it here or you can buy it off my website if you want to contribute...


----------



## Thundercat

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> I agree in theory and certainly for end user apps (end user apps should be braindead-proof), but intuition is based on prior experience so it _can _be meaningless.
> 
> If however, you put in the effort to learn the ideas and advances a developer puts forth and it still feels unintuitive then that's another matter.
> 
> Why do I care? Because id rather not have the software I use professionally to become bloated with "user friendly" menus and superfluous tabs or overhauled to be less efficient but more "friendly" because new users CBF reading the manual.


Point taken. But good GUI design is just that - good. If menus are bloated and confusing that’s not good GUI design.

You can have efficiency of operation and streamlined, clear and easy to use GUI. I’m not sure why you think it’s one or the other?


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

Bollen said:


> Streamdeck is a no brainer... I've never had to worry about shortcuts!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anybody wants the profile (for both regular and XL) I'll upload it here or you can buy it off my website if you want to contribute...



I similarly use Metagrid, which has a Dorico profile. Super handy!


----------



## Bollen

ALittleNightMusic said:


> I similarly use Metagrid, which has a Dorico profile. Super handy!


Ah yeah, I used to use something like that on an iPad, but found that with Streamdeck you have the tactile feedback so I don't even have to look at it when notating...


----------



## Leigh

Some examples of using StreamDeck with Dorico are here:

NYC Music Svcs StreamDeck + Dorico

**Leigh


----------



## mducharme

Thundercat said:


> Point taken. But good GUI design is just that - good. If menus are bloated and confusing that’s not good GUI design.
> 
> You can have efficiency of operation and streamlined, clear and easy to use GUI. I’m not sure why you think it’s one or the other?



Daniel has explained specifically that the mouse interface for Dorico is a second class citizen currently, but won't be forever. They are currently focused on allowing professional engravers to work as quickly as possible by giving them a large number of key commands, since such engravers typically use a large number of hotkeys already to get good results quickly. Hobbyists (etc.) who work with the mouse more often are considered secondary.

However, I don't find the GUI confusing.


----------



## gzapper

I've also found Dorico way faster and a way cleaner GUI than Sibelius. I'm mostly on DAW, so only with notation a couple of times a month. With Sibelius I could never find anything on the toolbar and always had to search, find the right toolbar page, search again. It was never shortcuts. Sibelius shows less but the shortcuts make so much more sense that they're just much easier to remember. Shift B= bars.

The structure is quite different, but also so much more powerful. Different players are powerful, 'flows' are very useful in larger projects with a number of pieces with the same pool of instruments. Dorico w BBCSO is great, no fussing with keyswitches and checking to see what's in the midi track, you just write 'pizz' and there it is. Its so much more enjoyable to do the (admittedly rare for my work) orch mockup entirely through notation. Once I got used to the structure it really feels like what the brothers would have done with Sibelius if they could have started over and kept it consistent and clean throughout. Which is really what happened.


----------



## Thundercat

mducharme said:


> Daniel has explained specifically that the mouse interface for Dorico is a second class citizen currently, but won't be forever. They are currently focused on allowing professional engravers to work as quickly as possible by giving them a large number of key commands, since such engravers typically use a large number of hotkeys already to get good results quickly. Hobbyists (etc.) who work with the mouse more often are considered secondary.
> 
> However, I don't find the GUI confusing.


Excellent news! I knew that team was incapable of bad design, so this has had me flummoxed. Hope they shore things up soon.

Thanks,

Mike


----------



## jaketanner

Sorry to rehash this...but if I am working specifically in Pro Tools, would it make more sense to go with Sibelius for integration? Or does it really not matter? From PT to Sibelius it's a matter of MIDI export, not even with XML files...since I am not using any other DAW, is this a good idea? Thanks.

I noticed in Pro Tools, there is a specific "export to Sibelius" button which I'd imagine would be better integration?


----------



## Woodie1972

I have no experience with it myself, but from what I hear about it, it works pretty good, so maybe that would be your best bet.


----------



## ed buller

jaketanner said:


> Sorry to rehash this...but if I am working specifically in Pro Tools, would it make more sense to go with Sibelius for integration? Or does it really not matter? From PT to Sibelius it's a matter of MIDI export, not even with XML files...since I am not using any other DAW, is this a good idea? Thanks.
> 
> I noticed in Pro Tools, there is a specific "export to Sibelius" button which I'd imagine would be better integration?


there is...but Sibelius is old software. No meaningful updates for years and to integrate with sample libraries a total pain. Dorico is much much better for this. And has come on leaps and bounds in the last couple of years with loads more to come. Basically a large team of people working constantly to make it better....so it IS the future . 

best

e


----------



## jaketanner

ed buller said:


> there is...but Sibelius is old software. No meaningful updates for years and to integrate with sample libraries a total pain. Dorico is much much better for this. And has come on leaps and bounds in the last couple of years with loads more to come. Basically a large team of people working constantly to make it better....so it IS the future .
> 
> best
> 
> e


I have to agree...I did download both trials (Sibelius and Dorico)...so far I like Dorico better, but still trying to do the simplest things seems not intuitive. 

So I can't find where to use my own samples, because using the Halion stuff simply won't do...and I also don't want to house the Halion samples on my internal drive...can't seem to be able to move them to an external hard drive.

Second, I want to know if this is possible: (to me seems like it would be a no brainer feature, but perhaps i am asking a lot...LOL). So i want to be able to input notes from my controller slowly, and have the notation software recognize if I hold a quarter note, whole note, 8th and everything in between without the need to switch values. In Sibelius, I was able to play in with a metronome, and it did this somewhat...is this possible with Dorico while looking at the score? 

Also, something as simple as pressing the return key to get me to the top is not smooth...seems there are different modes to be in that will do this.

Now of course all this has to do with actually learning the program, and it's not something I can just "wing it"...LOL without spending the time to learn...


----------



## Woodie1972

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds to me as midi record option (Ctrl+R) in Dorico. Just set the metronome to the desired tempo, maybe first check the quantize settings, but those are pretty common by default, and start recording.


----------



## jaketanner

Woodie1972 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds to me as midi record option (Ctrl+R) in Dorico. Just set the metronome to the desired tempo, maybe first check the quantize settings, but those are pretty common by default, and start recording.


I will check that out. Thank you.


----------



## mducharme

jaketanner said:


> So I can't find where to use my own samples, because using the Halion stuff simply won't do...and I also don't want to house the Halion samples on my internal drive...can't seem to be able to move them to an external hard drive.



You have to run the "Steinberg Library Manager" program to move the libraries to the other drive. There is a move button in there that makes it quite simple.

For using your own libraries, you can go into play mode, load up the VST instruments into banks on the right pane, and map the tracks to the VST instruments on teh correct channel.



> Also, something as simple as pressing the return key to get me to the top is not smooth...seems there are different modes to be in that will do this.



I'm afraid I don't understand what you are asking here. The ENTER/RETURN key takes you into note input mode. So I don't know what you mean by "get you to the top".


----------



## jaketanner

mducharme said:


> You have to run the "Steinberg Library Manager" program to move the libraries to the other drive. There is a move button in there that makes it quite simple.
> 
> For using your own libraries, you can go into play mode, load up the VST instruments into banks on the right pane, and map the tracks to the VST instruments on teh correct channel.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I don't understand what you are asking here. The ENTER/RETURN key takes you into note input mode. So I don't know what you mean by "get you to the top".


Sorry. Enter as in take me to the beginning of the piece.

and thanks for the other I formation. Going to try that a bit later today. I just need to spend some time with it.


----------



## wcreed51

I agree that Dorico is the least intuitive of all the notation programs, but the are MANY YouTubes that help you learn, so good to make use of them.


----------



## jaketanner

wcreed51 said:


> I agree that Dorico is the least intuitive of all the notation programs, but the are MANY YouTubes that help you learn, so good to make use of them.


Well, so far with the help I received here, I was able to assign my own Vis...which is amazingly easy, and there is also some sequencing DAW type section which is also pretty cool...I will need to take a look at some videos and tutorials to see what the best input method would be for me, but I like it. Would you know if I got Elements, if that includes the DAW area and also would I be able to use my own samples? Or is this a feature of PRO only? There is a huge price difference between the two. Thanks.


----------



## mducharme

jaketanner said:


> Would you know if I got Elements, if that includes the DAW area and also would I be able to use my own samples? Or is this a feature of PRO only? There is a huge price difference between the two. Thanks.



Yes, Elements includes the Play tab, but it does not have Halion Symphonic Orchestra bundled. However it doesn't have Engrave mode, so the formatting of score and parts is limited to being able to add page or system breaks - you will be unable to manually move objects around from their default locations. This is the biggest weakness of Elements and makes it not really usable if you are producing a score and parts for actual performers.


----------



## jaketanner

mducharme said:


> Yes, Elements includes the Play tab, but it does not have Halion Symphonic Orchestra bundled. However it doesn't have Engrave mode, so the formatting of score and parts is limited to being able to add page or system breaks - you will be unable to manually move objects around from their default locations. This is the biggest weakness of Elements and makes it not really usable if you are producing a score and parts for actual performers.


got it, thanks. As for sounds, not sure how good the Halion Symphonic sounds are but I would probably use my regular libraries...although, it may be faster to just use the Halion?

My intended use for Dorico, or any notation software, is importing the MIDI data from my DAW. I would not really be using Dorico much to play into, as I would to just print a score from a DAW...is this something that would be relatively painless? I know that it would be better to tidy up the MIDI in my DAW first...(no overlapping notes, etc).


----------



## ed buller

You Tube is your friend. Also buy this:



It's a fiddly beast that's for sure. And it doesn't like you using the mouse. But it's worth it. If you have BBC SO there is a great template for it

best

ed


----------



## jaketanner

ed buller said:


> You Tube is your friend. Also buy this:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a fiddly beast that's for sure. And it doesn't like you using the mouse. But it's worth it. If you have BBC SO there is a great template for it
> 
> best
> 
> ed



I have BBCSO...but for now, until I get more experienced with the program itself, I will be importing the MIDI data from the DAW into Dorico. And possibly just use the built in sounds...Actually doesn't matter since I can't overlap for legato anyway, so I am figuring it will sound like a stiff mess anyway... LOL


----------



## sinkd

jaketanner said:


> I will check that out. Thank you.


Or "k" to select midi before note value. Like Finale speedy entry/


----------



## Daniel S.

You can use ReWire to run Sibelius in sync with Pro Tools, and you can export a Sibelius score from the score window in Pro Tools (since that is using Sibelius technology under the hood), but there's no real integration in the sense that you cannot bi-directionally edit MIDI in one application and notation in the other and see the changes reflected instantly and automatically in the other.

With Dorico and Cubase we don't currently have any sync, by ReWire or any other method, and the score editor in Cubase is its own thing (that predates Dorico by 20+ years of course!), but in the future we will certainly be bringing the two applications closer together.


----------



## jaketanner

Daniel S. said:


> You can use ReWire to run Sibelius in sync with Pro Tools, and you can export a Sibelius score from the score window in Pro Tools (since that is using Sibelius technology under the hood), but there's no real integration in the sense that you cannot bi-directionally edit MIDI in one application and notation in the other and see the changes reflected instantly and automatically in the other.
> 
> With Dorico and Cubase we don't currently have any sync, by ReWire or any other method, and the score editor in Cubase is its own thing (that predates Dorico by 20+ years of course!), but in the future we will certainly be bringing the two applications closer together.


So far between the two trials, I like Dorico best. Seems a bit more user friendly and I love the Seudo DAW


----------



## ShikiSuen

If you write tonal music (especially symphonies), Dorico is your time saver.

Regardless its UI responsiveness issues regarding its MIDI editor and Mixer, Dorico is still my priority-one as not only my self-use but also my recommendation to others.


----------



## CatOrchestra

I am sure it is my fault, but does anyone else find it painful to edit small parts of a score in Dorico once a piece is more or less composed?

Such as going back to maybe adding a short part, changing the rhythm in part of a bar, or such?


----------



## Woodie1972

This is indeed not always as easy as you would like to see as user. Depending on what you need to change or fix, it depends how hard it is, but for me I always avoid the insert option, unless I exactly know what I do at that point. Had too much problems with insert in the past...


----------



## Bollen

CatOrchestra said:


> I am sure it is my fault, but does anyone else find it painful to edit small parts of a score in Dorico once a piece is more or less composed?
> 
> Such as going back to maybe adding a short part, changing the rhythm in part of a bar, or such?


I have to say no... But it took me several years to get to the position of being able to say it.


----------



## Saxer

CatOrchestra said:


> I am sure it is my fault, but does anyone else find it painful to edit small parts of a score in Dorico once a piece is more or less composed?


I really was afraid of but I had an acceptance session with a customer I arranged an X-mas CD program for and I was astonished myself that I was able to do most changes he wanted to have in realtime (like inserting a few bars, copy parts, rearrange the parts etc). 
Editing already finished work is always painful but the editing process itself is rather straight forward in Dorico.


----------



## CatOrchestra

Bollen said:


> I have to say no... But it took me several years to get to the position of being able to say it.


I am sure there are reasons grounded in musical theory why the Dorico team chose specific design paths.

I wish there were a way (maybe there is such way) where any additional notes I insert in a stave, that an equivalent note/rest is placed on the stave "below/connected" to it. I know this would cause a mess, but it is a mess that I am happy to clean up. I think this would be useful for me.


----------



## sinkd

CatOrchestra said:


> I am sure there are reasons grounded in musical theory why the Dorico team chose specific design paths.
> 
> I wish there were a way (maybe there is such way) where any additional notes I insert in a stave, that an equivalent note/rest is placed on the stave "below/connected" to it. I know this would cause a mess, but it is a mess that I am happy to clean up. I think this would be useful for me.


Do you mean so that fermatas, for example, are all at the same point in the bar? Even empty bars?


----------



## CatOrchestra

sinkd said:


> Do you mean so that fermatas, for example, are all at the same point in the bar? Even empty bars?


Not fermatas, more like if I decided to a add/remove certain notes into the treble clef, that dorico adds/removes the equivalent rests into the bass. So I can just quickly experiment with certain changes. And then I can fix the resulting mess later on.


----------



## Al Maurice

CatOrchestra said:


> Not fermatas, more like if I decided to a add/remove certain notes into the treble clef, that dorico adds/removes the equivalent rests into the bass. So I can just quickly experiment with certain changes. And then I can fix the resulting mess later on.


Unfortunately in most likelihood that would require a change to the overall design ethos.

Currently Dorico works in a positive manner, so that you can easily move notation around without being caught up within the measure, as I find happens with Finale. Or when moving between metric boundaries. Then a rest is added in automatically. 

This to my mind can be quite useful, but requires a slightly different mentality in laying out your ideas. Especially it makes working with multiple voices much better too, particular for lines with a short counter melody for instance.


----------



## ptram

Al Maurice said:


> Currently Dorico works in a positive manner, so that you can easily move notation around without being caught up within the measure


And, personally, I found it liberating when first faced with this behaviour. It's just like I think music, right or wrong I may be.

Paolo


----------



## Bollen

ptram said:


> And, personally, I found it liberating when first faced with this behaviour. It's just like I think music, right or wrong I may be.
> 
> Paolo


Agreed! Although I would love an option to display rests on empty bars... When you write very complex poly-rhythmic music it's sometimes really hard to visualise your place in the bar.


----------



## ptram

Bollen said:


> When you write very complex poly-rhythmic music it's sometimes really hard to visualise your place in the bar.


Isn't the small ruler appearing over the bar in edit enough, to map the underlying metric grid? I'm asking this, because this is a bit what some composers do on paper, to keep things well aligned.

Something my most important teacher had to tell me more than once: you seem always worried to reach the end of the bar. I try to defeat that imaginary border (and all its implications) each time I hear his voice in my mind!

Paolo


----------



## Al Maurice

Bollen said:


> Agreed! Although I would love an option to display rests on empty bars... When you write very complex poly-rhythmic music it's sometimes really hard to visualise your place in the bar.


Actually I think there may be a feature that can help you with this, check out:





Hiding/Showing bar rests in empty bars


You can hide/show bar rests in empty bars in each layout in your project independently of other layouts. For example, you can hide bar rests in full score layouts but show bar rests in part layouts.




steinberg.help





See if that helps, the Steinberg documentation isn't always that intuitive and you may need to complete some additional deep diving.


----------



## Bollen

ptram said:


> Isn't the small ruler appearing over the bar in edit enough, to map the underlying metric grid? I'm asking this, because this is a bit what some composers do on paper, to keep things well aligned.
> 
> Something my most important teacher had to tell me more than once: you seem always worried to reach the end of the bar. I try to defeat that imaginary border (and all its implications) each time I hear his voice in my mind!
> 
> Paolo


It doesn't help much, but it might just be an issue of different workflow. I got used to working in Sibelius where I could fill the bar with any type of rest I wanted, very useful for working out combination of tuplets like 11 against 7, etc.


Al Maurice said:


> Actually I think there may be a feature that can help you with this, check out:


Isn't that just to display whole bar rests? For me the basic issue stems from when I am notating, say I have a semiquaver quintuplet that starts on the upbeat of 3, because Dorico doesn't display the rests until I start inputting notes I often find myself getting lost. This also applies when trying to combine different tuplets in different instruments, it would be helpful that I could subdivide the bar in specific rests e.g. crotchets, quavers, etc.


----------



## Dewdman42

I'm still in experimental mode with Dorico. I do have to say there are numerous things I really really like about it, but I have also run into a few situations where it was a huge hassle to make a simple thing appear the way I want on the score, in a few cases I couldn't even ever figure out how to do it. Dorico has a lot of "automatic" functionality in it, which I get the theory that they are trying to remove a lot of manual labor from the notation process, but I do think in some cases it is a bit authoritarian and can cause grief when trying to do something on the score in a way that is different then what they have deemed to be "proper". Not sure how I feel about that and I still have other notational programs here that can get the job done.

Dorico on the other hand has totally awesome sound playback and some other really cool features that I think are really useful and time saving...so... I like the direction they are going, but somehow they have to make it possible for us to easily enter stuff outside their view of "normal" without Dorico automatically deleting what we just did while are even in the process of trying to do it.


----------



## mducharme

Dewdman42 said:


> but I do think in some cases it is a bit authoritarian and can cause grief when trying to do something on the score in a way that is different then what they have deemed to be "proper".


I think this is a bit of a common misunderstanding (at least, I feel) about Dorico's design in some ways. Tantacrul came to the same conclusion in his video on Dorico, and I don't really think they are trying to force people to use what they deem "proper".

What I feel Dorico is actually trying to do is merge DAW and notation in a closer way than ever before. Consider the way in which a DAW piano roll differs from notation. Notation has ties, but in a DAW piano roll, a series of tied notes is just a single rectangle, a single entity, even across multiple measures. There are no rests in a DAW piano roll - rests are just places where there are no notes. This is exactly the same as in Dorico. In your DAW, you can enter a note that is a half note in length on, say, the second eighth of the bar. You will get a rectangle in your piano roll that is a half note in length on the second eighth of the bar.

When you are entering notation in Dorico, it is like you were entering on a piano roll, but it is interpreting it live. In Dorico, there are no rests, you leave a blank space like in a DAW piano roll where you don't want anything. When you tell Dorico to add a half note on the second eighth of the bar, what it is actually doing is not adding a literal half note there, but adding a "rectangle" that is a half note in duration starting there. The note values in Dorico are not for specifying literal note values, but instead durations. It is saying "I want a note equivalent to a half note in length starting from here", and then since you have told Dorico that you wanted a note equivalent to a half note in length, it determines what the default notation of that should be. It isn't that you told Dorico to make a literal half note and changes it to a couple tied notes and therefore enforcing what is "proper", it is instead that you have told Dorico "I want a note equivalent to a half note in length starting here".

Of course sometimes Dorico will not interpret it the way you want and you may need to override with force duration. However, the potential advantage to this approach is that, as it is refined, it can make automatic translation of DAW MIDI to scores much better, as it is basically what Dorico is doing with all music that you enter. As they make Dorico better at automatically interpreting what you want as you enter music live, they also make automatic MIDI to score conversion that much better at the same time, since it uses the same functionality within the program.


----------



## Dewdman42

but I have easily come across situations where it DID in fact force me to not be able to score something the way I wanted and I just plain gave up trying.

I hear you that Dorico is attempting to "interpret" and make automatic notation, but when they want it a different way then I do...its nothing but a total pain in the ass, getting in my way relentlessly


----------



## mducharme

Dewdman42 said:


> but I have easily come across situations where it DID in fact force me to not be able to score something the way I wanted and I just plain gave up trying.
> 
> I hear you that Dorico is attempting to "interpret" and make automatic notation, but when they want it a different way then I do...its nothing but a total pain in the ass, getting in my way relentlessly


I am interested in hearing about those situations. I have found it very rare where Dorico cannot produce what I want by any means. Sometimes it is a bit more work, but I have not found anything impossible.

Very often, you can go into the notation options and "train" Dorico there to know what you want in certain situations. That may not be the case here - I am interested in hearing about your specific scenario.


----------



## cmillar

The only thing that’s caused me a little grief and re-thinking is the situation where you have a tie going across a bar line attached to a dotted note in the next measure.

I find that when using ‘Pitch before Duration’ you can’t approach it as if you are thinking ‘pencil and paper’ when in this situation.

Let!s say I want to have an quarter note on beat 4 and I want to tie it to a dotted note (of any duration) in the next measure.

Let’s say the dotted note is a dotted quarter note on beat 1 of the next measure.

One must enter the tie which goes over the bar line, then enter the beat one quarter note, then enter another tie, and then enter an eighth note. 

You can’t simply enter ‘tie’ and then ‘quarter-dot’.

Daniel S. very nicely answered this query aNd explained the rationale behind this input scenario.

I had to ‘re-train’ my brain a bit in order to accomplish this scenario, as I come from 10 years of Sibelius ‘pitch before duration’ which works beautifully.

But, this has been the only brain twister I’ve run across.


----------



## gzapper

cmillar said:


> The only thing that’s caused me a little grief and re-thinking is the situation where you have a tie going across a bar line attached to a dotted note in the next measure.
> 
> I find that when using ‘Pitch before Duration’ you can’t approach it as if you are thinking ‘pencil and paper’ when in this situation.
> 
> Let!s say I want to have an quarter note on beat 4 and I want to tie it to a dotted note (of any duration) in the next measure.
> 
> Let’s say the dotted note is a dotted quarter note on beat 1 of the next measure.
> 
> One must enter the tie which goes over the bar line, then enter the beat one quarter note, then enter another tie, and then enter an eighth note.
> 
> You can’t simply enter ‘tie’ and then ‘quarter-dot’.
> 
> Daniel S. very nicely answered this query aNd explained the rationale behind this input scenario.
> 
> I had to ‘re-train’ my brain a bit in order to accomplish this scenario, as I come from 10 years of Sibelius ‘pitch before duration’ which works beautifully.
> 
> But, this has been the only brain twister I’ve run across.


You always have to learn a bit of how the software works and adjust your process to it to get the best results.

For instance, in your example you could either:
type '7' to input a half note on beat four, select your note and use 'option/ cursor right' to extend the duration (assuming you're on eighth note selections) and Dorico would give you that quarter tied to a dotted eighth note in a few key strokes.

Or input your quarter note on beat four, type '.' to get your dotted quarter and then go back and add the tie. I think that's faster than sibelius or finale, from what I remember, or at least as fast.

So yes, 'retrain' your brain like you'd do playing a different instrument. Its a tool or an instrument, you need to learn it.


----------



## SturtOfTheWeald

Personally, I hold Dorico in the highest of regards because it has the inherent ability to make scores clean with far less effort than what I've had to do in nine years of Sibelius.

I am saying this as someone who's primarily trained in concert music and music typesetting, and yes, it did take a short while for me to learn the software. However, surely that's no different from learning any other bit of software out there? As @gzapper says, it is a tool and you need to learn how to use it so that it doesn't rule you.


----------



## Al Maurice

No application is perfect. Not every user is going to click with it at first.

I certainly found Dorico's way of doing things clunky at first coming from Finale.

But once they incorporated the features that related to me, I decided let's give it another try.


So I downloaded the demo, and persisted until I had discovered how to mark up different styles of composition. Moreover I found it most useful for arranging and orchestrating, due to its features for moving, exploding and reducing the score.

Yet it's early days, Sibelius and Finale have pedigree and were designed as notation software from the ground up.

Dorico comes from a different angle, at it's heart lies the audio engine straight from the Cubase stable, which can be seen as a blessing or a curse. And over the top they built an engraving engine and layout tool, which can easily be tweeked to quickly give a deliverable result in a fraction of the time.

True it still not the there yet, right now it seems handles metric aligned compositions the best; like others have mentioned I find handling polyrhythmic or jazz-like scores more cumbersome. However to be fair, the team have bolstered up the Expression mapping so it can better handle jazz notation with appropriate sample libraries. Demonstrating the product is on the way, we just need to be more patient, and be willing to have a conversation with the development where Dorico currently lacks.


----------



## wcreed51

I think you'll find this article on Scoring Notes of interest, by someone who input the entire Rite of Spring in Dorico.









Dorico and The Rite of Spring - Scoring Notes


A journey through engraving the entirety of The Rite of Spring into Dorico, to learn more about the composition and how to use the software.




www.scoringnotes.com


----------



## ManOn1st

I purchased Dorico a few months ago, but I likely won't incorporate it into my music production workflow (which I'm still figuring out). To be fair, Dorico doesn't really hold itself out to be a music _production_ tool, only a music _publishing_ tool, so they, like other publishing suites, are more concerned about creating scores that _look_ nice and professional than they are about helping to actually produce music. Maybe this is a no-brainer to those how have been in the game for a long time, but for the newcomer that I am, it took me a long-time to understand this important distinction (and my ignorance cost me a lot of wasted $ , lol!).

When I say music _production_, I mean seamlessly being able to go from sketching in IOS (or maybe pen and paper), through maybe a desktop scoring tool for additional editing, and into my DAW, and then out to some recorded format (and of course back and forth along that spectrum as changes occur). For this I use Notion. IMO, nothing can beat it in this regard. I can sketch out a piece on the Metro (subway) using Notion IOS on my ipad. I can open that piece up on my Mac desktop when I get home (it seamlessly connects through icloud). And I can play the score, real-time, directly from Notion into Logic via ReWire to do all kinds of additional processing and editing. No need for all of that importing and exporting XML and midi data between multiple pieces of desktop software and IOS apps, or having to employ various hacks and scripting to get these things to properly talk to one another. That needed to happen in the past, it doesn't any longer. I guess some folks are still forcing it. This is what I mean by music _production. _From what I understand, Notion is the ONLY serious solution for this. Everything else involves some sort of tweak in order to function or communicate properly.

Music _publishing_, is taking that finished product, and then importing it into a tool like Dorico, Sibelius, or Finale, and making it _look_ professional-grade on paper. Most people will never, ever, need to do this nowadays unless you're at the point where you're ready to publish your scores for professional consumption, in which case, if you're a high roller like that, you could also just hire an engraver for this step, unless you just like to do it as a _hobby_. I mean, I doubt authors are involved in the process of setting the text of their novels to printed paper and probably very few are involved in the process of book binding. They tend to leave that to their publishers, who have all sorts of fancy tools, don't they?  They may sketch their novels in Microsoft Word, but probably aren't type-setting their novels using specialty software!

So if you're just looking for a notation sketching tool to aid you in actual musical production, there are many more basic tools to get you there, including some notation tools that come included with some DAWs (like Logic score editor).

Having said that, the lines appear to be getting blurred. Dorico looks as if they may begin to cross into music _production_. Some of their tools even look and act like a DAW (but don't be fooled, they're not there yet). And likewise on the DAW front, if Apple actually got serious, they would invest, for them what would be a penny of their $2 trillion in resources, into simply improving Logic's score editor and developing an accompanying IOS app. They could probably do this with their eyes closed. If they did, they'd once and for all knock off most other music publishing software developers (at least for Logic users). (As an investor I would be nervous about investing in a score publishing software company, because I would imagine at some point, if Apple were to even remotely dip their toe into improving its score editor, they would deal a death blow to many of these these smaller third-party software developers). But as of yet, no one has fully closed the DAW to publishing gap, and, in my view, no one but Notion, with all of its shortcomings, is really even seriously playing in this arena. That may change. But for now, IOS score editor app developers are going down their own development path, desktop score editors down their own path, and DAWs down their own path. It's an inefficient market that's begging for a solution from an entrepreneur to bring all three together. For now at least, this is the niche where Notion plays nicely.

So if I had to do it all over again? Instead of purchasing Dorico, I'd ride my score editor in Logic and in Notion until the wheels came off and I absolutely couldn't get what I wanted out of them, and I'd wait to see how the inevitable clash between DAWs and third-party score editors shake out. Whoever wins and develops a seamless IOS to Desktop to DAW integration would get my next purchase. My wallet is closed until then. Will it be Cubase's Dorico, Logic's Score Editor, an improved Studio One's Notion? 

Otherwise, I would only purchase Dorico again (or try out Sibelius or Finale) if I had a sadistic desire to set and publish my own scores. And then who knows, maybe I'd also invest in an old-fashioned printing press to boot. 

I love the developers at Dorico and I'm going to continue following them. We'll see how this segment of the market shakes out.

Maybe a bit much, but I hope this helps some newer folks like me sort this out.


----------



## gzapper

Notion looks cool, totally different tool, but cool.

I'm not so interested in writing on my phone, but maybe.

For Dorico, doing orch mockups inside it is really nice. Its great to see all the parts and having musical notation come out with the right key switches and dynamic controls is pretty great. I've already done a couple of small projects where I wrote small orch parts in Dorico and exported audio into DP, just because the writing is easier. But totally different uses than Notion.


----------



## Bollen

I never managed to use Notion in any useful way, I suppose it depends on your workflow and in what order you do things... I'm traditionally a pen and paper guy, so I tend to just use Staffpad>Dorico (using VE Pro) and that's the end of my route (although I find myself using just Dorico more and more). If I'm working on a film, where I have specific audio requirements, I'll dump the MIDI into Cubase, but most of the time Dorico's export is sufficient.

I really don't think Apple could develop a good score editor, but that's just my very biased opinion because I've always had a bad experience with their products.


----------



## InLight-Tone

A couple of questions:
1-Is there any further talk on merging Dorico & Cubase?
2-Any talk of Dorico on iOS?


----------



## DaddyO

InLight-Tone said:


> A couple of questions:
> 1-Is there any further talk on merging Dorico & Cubase?
> 2-Any talk of Dorico on iOS?


1. Daniel Spreadbury has made it clear that while the team wants to improve the interoperability of Dorico and Cubase, the products are too different to merge. Thus there is no end game for such an idea.
2. Any talk of Dorico on iOS has consistently been answered in the negative, so far as I am aware.

Anyone who thinks I have overstated things, feel free to chime in. I don't believe I have done so.


----------



## Thundercat

DaddyO said:


> 1. Daniel Spreadbury has made it clear that while the team wants to improve the interoperability of Dorico and Cubase, the products are too different to merge. Thus there is no end game for such an idea.
> 2. Any talk of Dorico on iOS has consistently been answered in the negative, so far as I am aware.
> 
> Anyone who thinks I have overstated things, feel free to chime in. I don't believe I have done so.


You watch. Maybe not this or next year. But this idea will have its day. It’s inevitable. In fact it’s already been done with one product. If steinberg misses this they will be fools.


----------



## joebaggan

Thundercat said:


> You watch. Maybe not this or next year. But this idea will have its day. It’s inevitable. In fact it’s already been done with one product. If steinberg misses this they will be fools.


Agreed, there will be a fully integrated notation / DAW package on the market someday that will be hugely useful to those of us who are notation based composers. There's no technical reason why a product like this couldn't exist. It may not be Steinberg, but if not them then it will be somebody else.


----------



## Thundercat

joebaggan said:


> Agreed, there will be a fully integrated notation / DAW package on the market someday that will be hugely useful to those of us who are notation based composers. There's no technical reason why a product like this couldn't exist. It may not be Steinberg, but if not them then it will be somebody else.


Agreed.

As I said, this product DOES already exist. It's called Overture. But it's run by one lone developer, and as good as it is, it has a lot of bugs and issues that prevent it from really being ready for prime-time.

If one guy can do this, now for years, then a whole team of geniuses can do this. It's a matter of will, and when, not if. Steinberg is poised to be that developer, with two amazing products that could be reimagined and recoded to create a magical merging that we've all been waiting for...


----------



## Bollen

I agree with you both, but if I may ask... What's better about Overture vs Dorico at this point? I never managed to finish anything in Ov, whereas I've done tons of Pro work on Dorico with never an issue...


----------



## DaddyO

Thundercat said:


> You watch. Maybe not this or next year. But this idea will have its day. It’s inevitable. In fact it’s already been done with one product. If steinberg misses this they will be fools.


I did not at all say the idea would never have it's day. I only reported what we have heard from the Dorico team so far has been to expect integration rather than a merge. If someone wants to point to contrary posts from Daniel or the team on this subject, I'm happy to be corrected.

As I recall one fundamental point to reckon with is that Cubase' architecture is MIDI to Notation, wherease Dorico's is the exact opposite, Notation to MIDI. Cubase reads the MIDI and interprets it to get notation. Dorico reads the notation and interprets it to get MIDI.

Also, Daniel has said that he believes there will always be a distinct market for Dorico as opposed to Cubase.

What is correct, and what the future holds, none of us know.

I happen to be with you in the sense that there is a large market of people who would jump at the opportunity to use one program with the combined capabilities of Cubase and Dorico. And I posted to that effect several times early on before reading the team's statements in response to requests like that.

If I am misunderstanding Daniel or the team, by all means someone point it out. I'd happily stand corrected.


----------

