[ANN] Ten Music Notation Programs, second edition

Recommendations concerning notation and publishing software in a non-partisan environment.
Christof Schardt
Posts: 25
Joined: 17 Jun 2016, 10:00

Re: [ANN] Ten Music Notation Programs, second edition

Post by Christof Schardt » 20 Jul 2017, 19:57

jrethorst wrote:
16 Jul 2017, 18:22
This document presents a one-page score as engraved by ten of the most popular music notation programs: =0[/url]
I'd like to see the PriMus sample page added. The page has already been provided by Andreas Gramm in this post:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=217&start=10#p4188

Yes, and indeed a "raw" version of the page by each program would be interesting. And finally the number and complexity of the edit steps, which leaded to the tweaked result.
Software Developer, Musician and Engraving Aficionado
PriMus 1.1

jrethorst
Posts: 95
Joined: 09 Apr 2016, 18:48

Re: [ANN] Ten Music Notation Programs, second edition

Post by jrethorst » 21 Jul 2017, 14:09

Fred G. Unn wrote:
18 Jul 2017, 20:04
John Ruggero wrote:
18 Jul 2017, 15:04
For me, the document would be more useful if one saw each program in its Sunday best.
I'm in agreement here. I mean it's nice to see what each program does by default, but most better engravers aren't going to limit themselves to the defaults, they are going to tweak them to achieve the best possible output. I think it would be interesting to see a version with the shipping defaults and minimal manual tweaking, and then a top shelf version by the same program and engraver using whatever settings they feel appropriate.
Engravers were asked to follow software defaults to the extent, but not beyond the extent, that they felt comfortable with the defaults, including fonts. They would not have wanted to submit anything else from the application they have chosen to use. Most of the samples are their Sunday best with some defaults, e.g. fonts. Glyph spacing apparently needs tweaking everywhere, except maybe LilyPond. Since Finale ships with both Maestro and Engraver, among others, how much does it mean to call M the default rather than E? You're right that the document would have more if each program had the two samples you describe, but many of the engravers are busy professionals and I was grateful for the generosity they offered.

jrethorst
Posts: 95
Joined: 09 Apr 2016, 18:48

Re: [ANN] Ten Music Notation Programs, second edition

Post by jrethorst » 21 Jul 2017, 14:14

Fred G. Unn wrote:
18 Jul 2017, 20:24
Was there ever a consensus on whether it is a D# or D natural in the 3rd bar? I see some engravers adding a #, some a natural, and some just leaving it alone.
It has to be a D#. Curious that in the original, by the arranger (in Score), it's not sharped.

Schonbergian
Posts: 145
Joined: 03 Feb 2017, 02:25
Location: Toronto

Re: [ANN] Ten Music Notation Programs, second edition

Post by Schonbergian » 22 Jul 2017, 04:31

I agree that this in-between solution isn't really optimal for either case. Either show us the extremes of what can be achieved with the program or the bare default.

jrethorst
Posts: 95
Joined: 09 Apr 2016, 18:48

Re: [ANN] Ten Music Notation Programs, second edition

Post by jrethorst » 25 Jul 2017, 18:46

Just to explore perceptions and expectations: each program's defaults represent a set of decisions made by that program's designers as to the best that program can offer. Why would the designers do anything else? They have made settings adjustable from defaults, though, since they know that style and taste differ among engravers. Similarly, font designers know that not everyone will choose their font even though to their minds it's the best design to be had. So "the extremes of what can be achieved with the program" and "the bare default" are not mutually exclusive. This document was made by 10 experienced people, each of whom has judgment and taste that may differ from that of the designers of the program he or she prefers, and their engravings reflect that. A more rigorous comparison would require that one person have access to all 10 programs and either exactly follow defaults in all of them or deviate from defaults according to his or her individual taste, which in turn may not meet someone else's idea of the extremes that can be achieved. That comparison could probably not be a volunteer effort, as was this document. I can't muster the resources to develop such a comparison; if you can, please do so.
John Rethorst

Schonbergian
Posts: 145
Joined: 03 Feb 2017, 02:25
Location: Toronto

Re: [ANN] Ten Music Notation Programs, second edition

Post by Schonbergian » 25 Jul 2017, 21:50

If we're bringing individual personality into it but only to a certain point, it destroys the idea of showing what each program is capable of, either by default or to the highest possible level.

User avatar
odod
Posts: 133
Joined: 25 Nov 2015, 15:10

Re: [ANN] Ten Music Notation Programs, second edition

Post by odod » 26 Jul 2017, 03:53

Schonbergian wrote:
25 Jul 2017, 21:50
If we're bringing individual personality into it but only to a certain point, it destroys the idea of showing what each program is capable of, either by default or to the highest possible level.
i second to this, anyway the piece itself is not representing the highest capability of each software, maybe you should pick other challenging piece of music .. say classical or modern music.

example : (we did this on facebook group)
Nekat.png
Nekat.png (49.52 KiB) Viewed 1834 times
LogicX, Cubase 5, MacMini i7, Macbook Pro 2015, PowerMac G5, Sibelius 8, Finale, Musescore, Reaper, Apogee Duet, Universal Audio Apollo Twin MKII, FontLab, tons of Faith and Prayers

Serenade Music Engraving Service

User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 1251
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: [ANN] Ten Music Notation Programs, second edition

Post by John Ruggero » 27 Jul 2017, 22:57

jrethorst wrote:
25 Jul 2017, 18:46
each program's defaults represent a set of decisions made by that program's designers as to the best that program can offer. Why would the designers do anything else?
If only this were true, at least, in the case of Finale. There have been numerous threads on this site that have discussed the shortcomings of the Finale defaults. Why would the designers allow this? I have no idea. But I do know that there are many settings that have to be modified to be able to produce professionally acceptable output in Finale.
Mac mini (OS 10.8.5) with dual monitors, Kurzweil Mark 5 with M-Audio Midisport 2 x 2,
Finale 2014d with GPO 4, JW Plug-ins, SmartScore X Pro, Adobe InDesign CS4,
Inkscape .48.5 and .91, FontForge 20150526
http://www.cantilenapress.com

jrethorst
Posts: 95
Joined: 09 Apr 2016, 18:48

Re: [ANN] Ten Music Notation Programs, second edition

Post by jrethorst » 29 Jul 2017, 16:36

I apologize for my apparent lack of clarity in describing the project. Each engraving was intended to be top shelf. Where a default was an equally acceptable option to the engraver, that's what he used. The Sibelius sample, for instance, was done by a professional publisher who chooses to use that program (see http://www.billholabmusic.com/). Were I to do a Sibelius sample, I'd use the Norfolk font (Bravura remapped for Sibelius) since I find the program's default, Opus, pretty unattractive. The engraver doesn't, so that's what he used. His sample, though, is professional quality in every way. Not everyone will agree with all of his choices; such is the nature of music notation.
John Rethorst

jrethorst
Posts: 95
Joined: 09 Apr 2016, 18:48

Re: [ANN] Ten Music Notation Programs, second edition

Post by jrethorst » 29 Jul 2017, 16:43

odod wrote:
26 Jul 2017, 03:53
the piece itself is not representing the highest capability of each software
You're right. A comparison of the technical capability of each program is an important, often vital, step in the choice of an application. Using a technically complex piece might not better serve to compare the personality of each program (as this document does), though, and might even distract from it. It would also be much more to ask of the contributors. If you were able to develop such a comparison, though, I'd be glad to see it and I think a lot of members here would.
John Rethorst

Post Reply