Notation Programs' Output Comparison

Have your scores reviewed by other users. Comment on old and new published scores and on publishers.
Knut
Posts: 867
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 18:07
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Notation Programs' Output Comparison

Post by Knut »

John Ruggero wrote:As suggested by tismst, I think that it would be a great project for Notat.io to take on. A few ideas occurred to me to start a discussion of such a project:

1.The chosen piece might:

a. be a piano solo to show two clefs, braces etc.
b. contain a great variety of symbols and situations
c. fill a single page
d. be well-known, if possible, and, of course, in the public domain
e. be a piece in which the composer's MS, first editions and other primary and secondary materials are readily available. These might be presented on the Notat.io site in conjunction with the entries.

2. All entries would be engraved by means of any computer program or programs.
3. All entries could be available for observation and comment at the Notat.io website.
4. There could be no time constraints on submissions; the process could proceed as long as the Notat.io site exists.
5. One entry per engraver, but entries might be edited at any time.
6. The editorial philosophy would be left to the engraver and range from authentic "urtext" editions to highly personal ones.

I think that such a project might create a lot of interest and bring many new engravers to this site.
This is an excellent idea, indeed!

The question is, which piece to select.

Of the titles you mentioned earlier, I think the Chopin is the most able to showcase a variety of aspects. One limitation, though, is the lack of grace notes, which I think would be nice to include.

Looking beyond the Piano Solo repertoire, I think an outtake from a Cello Sonata could be interesting. Potentially, this could include all the most common clefs, as well as mixed staff sizes and a full featured piano part.
User avatar
OCTO
Posts: 1742
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 06:52
Location: Sweden

Re: Notation Programs' Output Comparison

Post by OCTO »

John Ruggero wrote:As suggested by tismst, I think that it would be a great project for Notat.io to take on. A few ideas occurred to me to start a discussion of such a project:

1.The chosen piece might:

a. be a piano solo to show two clefs, braces etc.
b. contain a great variety of symbols and situations
c. fill a single page
d. be well-known, if possible, and, of course, in the public domain
e. be a piece in which the composer's MS, first editions and other primary and secondary materials are readily available. These might be presented on the Notat.io site in conjunction with the entries.

2. All entries would be engraved by means of any computer program or programs.
3. All entries could be available for observation and comment at the Notat.io website.
4. There could be no time constraints on submissions; the process could proceed as long as the Notat.io site exists.
5. One entry per engraver, but entries might be edited at any time.
6. The editorial philosophy would be left to the engraver and range from authentic "urtext" editions to highly personal ones.

I think that such a project might create a lot of interest and bring many new engravers to this site.
Good ideas!
Maybe we could make a competition? The winner will get nothing but we could make a petition for him/her to get job at Universal/Ricordi/Henle/BH...
Therefore, the chosen piece could be a bad engraved score from a current publisher, and send it to them for information.
I have some of my favourites, like late Scriabin sonatas, or similar.
...I am not quite serious, but well...
Freelance Composer. Self-Publisher.
Finale 27.3 • Sibelius 2023.5• MuseScore 4+ • Logic Pro X+ • Ableton Live 11+ • Digital Performer 10+ /// MacOS Monterey (secondary in use systems: Fedora 35, Windows 10)
jrethorst
Posts: 122
Joined: 09 Apr 2016, 18:48

Re: Notation Programs' Output Comparison

Post by jrethorst »

John Ruggero wrote:This is certainly a worth-while endeavor, and I am amazed that no one has done it previously. I would make the following suggestions.
Terrific suggestions, John. Thanks so much!
John Ruggero wrote:3. Allow the engravers to use their personal settings so that the programs are seen at their best, not their worst.
Point well taken, and nothing was not, and will not be in the new edition, "allowed". But an experienced user of any of these programs can produce output much different from the personality each program exhibits by default design. Any rigorous distinction, between program defaults and what's possible, just can't be made.
John Ruggero wrote:4. Supply the original from which the engravers worked.
That was the sample done in the Score program, by Matanya Ophee, who did the guitar arrangement. That could have been stated more clearly.
John Ruggero wrote:Were the engravers allowed to change anything they wished?
Yes. There were no rules per se.

John R.
John Rethorst
jrethorst
Posts: 122
Joined: 09 Apr 2016, 18:48

Re: Notation Programs' Output Comparison

Post by jrethorst »

OCTO wrote:Absolutely amazing!
And welcome to the forum.
Thanks!
OCTO wrote:The PDF file looks like it is scanned, but I like that, somehow lines get smoother.
I used a less-than-optimum utility to combine the PDF files in the earlier version. The next version will be compiled with Adobe Acrobat.
OCTO wrote:SCORE doesn't look like having the original font.
Score doesn''t use a font file per se; vectors are hard-coded into the program.
OCTO wrote:The only thing I would change in the (future) comparison is to add some other values, such as whole notes, flags, rests, time signatures, accidentals and different values for spacing comparison. And also more dynamics such as sfp, mp, rinfz. etc.
A much more complex score could be used for comparison (Stockhausen?) But would greater complexity better illustrate the personality of the program?
John Rethorst
MJCube
Posts: 130
Joined: 15 Dec 2015, 13:32
Location: NYC

Re: Notation Programs' Output Comparison

Post by MJCube »

I think Octo meant to suggest not a greater complexity of the page, just a larger sampling of symbols.
User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 2453
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Notation Programs' Output Comparison

Post by John Ruggero »

jrethorst wrote:
Terrific suggestions, John. Thanks so much!
You are very welcome, John. Thanks again for sharing your project with us.
A much more complex score could be used for comparison (Stockhausen?) But would greater complexity better illustrate the personality of the program?
My first thought was actually one of the little piano pieces of Schoenberg, opus 19 no. 1, but there is the copyright problem. We must use something in the public domain unless we can secure permission, which seems unlikely, unless someone is well-connected at Universal or wherever.

Then there is the issue of the composer's MS, if this is a concern. These are generally not available for 20th century music.

Then there is the issue of accessibility. It might be best to use a piece that is well-known to interest a wider range of engravers.

Knut wrote:
This is an excellent idea, indeed!
Thank you so much for your support, Knut.
Of the titles you mentioned earlier, I think the Chopin is the most able to showcase a variety of aspects. One limitation, though, is the lack of grace notes, which I think would be nice to include.


Another problem with the Chopin is the lack of the MS at IMSLP. I own a facsimile and could post it, but I don't know the copyright status of facsimiles. Maybe it is available elsewhere on the web? Or maybe the first edition is sufficient?
Looking beyond the Piano Solo repertoire, I think an outtake from a Cello Sonata could be interesting. Potentially, this could include all the most common clefs, as well as mixed staff sizes and a full featured piano part.
I think you are right, a cello-piano piece would be better than a piano solo, but I don't know a piece short enough to fit on one page aside from Webern, which again has copyright issues. And an excerpt seems a little less appealing to me than a complete piece.

Of course, others may have very different ideas, and I hope that a consensus might emerge on exactly what qualities we are looking for.

It is not easy to find a candidate that satisfies all criteria, whatever those might be. I will spend the day looking and thinking about it and I hope that others might as well.

My criteria will be: in the public domain, short enough to fit on one page, instrumentation to include a double-staffed instrument, MS and early editions available, a wide range of musical symbols used, and something well-known, if possible.

These criteria eliminate: all Baroque and all 20th and 21st century music under any international copyright restrictions. Most Classic music, which generally utilizes larger forms and only rarely has the breadth of notational variety we might desire, and even much Romantic music which rarely satisfies both length and notational variety requirements simultaneously.
Last edited by John Ruggero on 13 Apr 2016, 01:45, edited 5 times in total.
M1 Mac mini (OS 12.4), Dorico, Finale 25.5, GPO 4, Affinity Publisher 2, SmartScore 64 Pro, JW Plug-ins, TG Tools, Keyboard maestro

http://www.cantilenapress.com
User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 2453
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Notation Programs' Output Comparison

Post by John Ruggero »

So that leaves the Impressionists:

Debussy "The Little Shepherd" from Children's Corner

It is in the public domain, contains a double-staffed part, uses a wide range of symbols including triplets, grace notes and many performance indications, the MS and early editions are available at IMSLP, it is very well-known. BUT it is two pages in length. However, maybe this is a good thing in that it allows engravers a little more working room?

Debussy “Girl with the Flaxen Hair” from Preludes Book 1 no. 8
Same as the above, also 2 pages, but the MS is not available online. There is an available Dover facsimile of the MS.

Similarly:

Ravel Mov 2 from Sonatine but no available MS and 2 pages long
Ravel Prelude (A minor) but no available MS and 2 pages long
M1 Mac mini (OS 12.4), Dorico, Finale 25.5, GPO 4, Affinity Publisher 2, SmartScore 64 Pro, JW Plug-ins, TG Tools, Keyboard maestro

http://www.cantilenapress.com
User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 2453
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Notation Programs' Output Comparison

Post by John Ruggero »

OCTO, I am glad that you like this idea. I know your suggestions were tongue-in-cheek, but crowdsourcing of music engraving could catch on with publishers and then where would professional engravers be? ;)
M1 Mac mini (OS 12.4), Dorico, Finale 25.5, GPO 4, Affinity Publisher 2, SmartScore 64 Pro, JW Plug-ins, TG Tools, Keyboard maestro

http://www.cantilenapress.com
Knut
Posts: 867
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 18:07
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Notation Programs' Output Comparison

Post by Knut »

John Ruggero wrote:So that leaves the Impressionists:

Debussy "The Little Shepherd" from Children's Corner

It is in the public domain, contains a double-staffed part, uses a wide range of symbols including triplets, grace notes and many performance indications, the MS and early editions are available at IMSLP, it is very well-known. BUT it is two pages in length. However, maybe this is a good thing in that it allows engravers a little more working room?
This is a good candidate. I'm not so sure that the availability of the manuscript is a huge advantage, though, since it seems somewhat incomplete. At least many of the performance instructions in the first edition do not appear in the manuscript.
User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 2453
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Notation Programs' Output Comparison

Post by John Ruggero »

I am glad that you like this one, Knut. It's pretty slim pickins' for such pieces, as they say here in the Southern US. This one is not overly complex, so the actual engraving quality might stand forth more clearly.

As for the MS vs the 1st edition, there seem to be just a few clarifying tempo markings and dynamics that Debussy probably added in the proofs. It is a very free piece and Debussy apparently realized that the rubato was not obvious. What is so valuable is to see how closely the engravers adhered to the MS. And yet there are a few places where they didn't and where the MS clarifies things that are less clear in the first edition, like measures 3-4 where the hairpins make more sense because the music is more spread.

I will keep thinking about potential pieces and hopefully others will too if indeed Notat.io wants to sponsor such a project.
M1 Mac mini (OS 12.4), Dorico, Finale 25.5, GPO 4, Affinity Publisher 2, SmartScore 64 Pro, JW Plug-ins, TG Tools, Keyboard maestro

http://www.cantilenapress.com
Post Reply