Re: Six Music Notation Programs - engraving comparison
Richard White
Rethorst <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> This PDF document contains a one-page score as engraved by Encore,
Finale, Music
> Press, Overture, Score and Sibelius. The comparison is interesting.
>
> Thanks to Richard Sayage (Encore), Lora Crighton (Finale), Richard White
(Music
> Press), Matanya Ophee (Score) and Daniel Spreadbury (Sibelius) for their fine
> typesetting. Thanks also to Matanya for the arrangement for classical
guitar of
> Vyssotsky's Elegy.
>
> I don't have a web site, but have submitted it to Info-Mac. Meanwhile, it's
> available at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/overture-users/ in the Files
section,
> as "Six Music Notation Programs.pdf". Joining the group is necessary,
but anyone
> with a web site is welcome to post this anywhere else. Please let us
know if you
> do.
I had forgotten about this. Please remind me when we did these.
Best,
Richard White
--
http://www.whitcopress.com http://www.whitcopress.com/rwpaypalpdf.html
Organ, Guitar, new "Classic" Rags for piano and more
Hear Linda Ronstadt sing Richard White on
'A Merry Little Christmas' Elektra 62572-2
Nightingale
>
> I don't have a web site, but have submitted it to Info-Mac. Meanwhile, it's
> available at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/overture-users/ in the Files section,
> as "Six Music Notation Programs.pdf". Joining the group is necessary, but anyone
> with a web site is welcome to post this anywhere else. Please let us know if you
> do.
>
Is there a more public site you could find for the file? Membership
must be approved by the group owner, and I am still waiting since yesterday.
--
Blessed Cecilia, appear in visions
To all musicians, appear and inspire:
Translated Daughter, come down and startle
Composing mortals with immortal fire.
Joseph Albano
> John Rethorst wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't have a web site, but have submitted it to Info-Mac. Meanwhile,
>> it's available at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/overture-users/ in the
>> Files section, as "Six Music Notation Programs.pdf". Joining the group
>> is necessary, but anyone with a web site is welcome to post this
>> anywhere else. Please let us know if you do.
>>
>
> Is there a more public site you could find for the file? Membership
> must be approved by the group owner, and I am still waiting since
> yesterday.
>
>
I will post if someone sends the file to me...
--
*********************************************************
JA
*********************************************************
The Interactive Chord Finder App for Guitar lives at:
http://www.notebeam.com
Joseph Albano
> Nightingale wrote:
>
>> John Rethorst wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I don't have a web site, but have submitted it to Info-Mac.
>>> Meanwhile, it's available at
>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/overture-users/ in the Files section,
>>> as "Six Music Notation Programs.pdf". Joining the group is necessary,
>>> but anyone with a web site is welcome to post this anywhere else.
>>> Please let us know if you do.
>>>
>>
>> Is there a more public site you could find for the file? Membership
>> must be approved by the group owner, and I am still waiting since
>> yesterday.
>>
>>
>
> I will post if someone sends the file to me...
>
I just rec'd the engraving comparison pdf file from John and posted it here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jfalbano/
It's a large file so give it some time to download.
Nightingale
Joseph Albano wrote:
>
> I just rec'd the engraving comparison pdf file from John and posted it
> here:
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~jfalbano/
>
> It's a large file so give it some time to download.
>
Thanks!! Now that everyone can see it, I'm curious to hear people's
opinions on the different outputs.
It would also be interesting to hear from the people who did them. What
features that do like/dislike, how much control do you have on the final
look, are the defaults usually good or do you have to do a lot of fixing up?
I mostly do choral scores, and found the guitar piece interesting to
work on, because it included a couple of things I've never needed to do
before. Mostly I took the default spacing, but I had to do a lot of
moving the rests, because I set it up as 3 voices on the one staff and
rests in one voice were sometimes overlapping with notes in another
voice. I also had to change the stem direction manually for some of the
notes in voice 3.
--
Io la Musica son, ch'ai dolci accenti
So far tranquillo ogni turbato core,
Et or di nobil ira et or d'amore
Poss'infiammar le piů gelate menti.
saraband
> In article <nobody-07CE83....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> John Rethorst <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>> This PDF document contains a one-page score as engraved by Encore, Finale,
>> Music Press, Overture, Score and Sibelius.
>
> The PDF files differed in size. In kilobytes:
>
> Encore 292
> Finale 220
> Music Press 248
> Overture 144
> Score 224
> Sibelius 252
The prices (most from www.free-scores.com, Music Press price from
www.graphire.com, and score from www.scoremus.com) in US dollars:
Encore $399
Finale $399
Music Press $595
Overture $289.95
Score $750
Sibelius $750
They all look quite good, but I think a comparison with some
free sources (e.g. Lilypond) would make it much more interesting.
Young Generation
work.
"Nightingale" <sin...@yorku.ca> wrote in message
news:42de4fae$0$18638$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
Rikard Peterson
"Nightingale" wrote in
news:42df233c$0$18636$1472...@news.sunsite.dk:
> I mostly do choral scores, and found the guitar piece interesting
> to work on, because it included a couple of things I've never
> needed to do before. Mostly I took the default spacing, but I had
> to do a lot of moving the rests, because I set it up as 3 voices
> on the one staff and rests in one voice were sometimes overlapping
> with notes in another voice. I also had to change the stem
> direction manually for some of the notes in voice 3.
Which program did you work with?
Rikard
Nightingale
> In article <nobody-07CE83....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> John Rethorst <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>
>>This PDF document contains a one-page score as engraved by Encore, Finale,
>>Music Press, Overture, Score and Sibelius.
>
>
> The PDF files differed in size. In kilobytes:
>
> Encore 292
> Finale 220
This is not related to Finale - there is probably a way to create a PDF
directly from the program but I've never needed one before & don't know
how to do it. The file was created by scanning a printout.
> Music Press 248
> Overture 144
> Score 224
> Sibelius 252
>
Nightingale
Sorry - I'm the one who did the Finale score.
Joseph Albano
> I am still waiting TWO days later. The link to discussion also didnot
> work.
>
> "Nightingale" <sin...@yorku.ca> wrote in message
> news:42de4fae$0$18638$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
>>Is there a more public site you could find for the file? Membership must
>>be approved by the group owner, and I am still waiting since yesterday.
You can download the PDF here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jfalbano/
Matthew Fields
Unsuprisingly, they look remarkably alike. The main differences are minute
differences in font size and margins.
The excerpt doesn't call for any slurs, cross-staff beaming, or
unusual notation (except that for some people, guitar music itself may
seem unusual).
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Matthew Fields
Nightingale <sin...@yorku.ca> wrote:
>John Rethorst wrote:
>> In article <nobody-07CE83....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>> John Rethorst <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This PDF document contains a one-page score as engraved by Encore, Finale,
>>>Music Press, Overture, Score and Sibelius.
>>
>>
>> The PDF files differed in size. In kilobytes:
>>
>> Encore 292
>> Finale 220
>
>This is not related to Finale - there is probably a way to create a PDF
>directly from the program but I've never needed one before & don't know
>how to do it. The file was created by scanning a printout.
Try printing to PDF995 or doing Save as PDF (Finale does that, doesn't it?).
>> Music Press 248
>> Overture 144
>> Score 224
>> Sibelius 252
>>
>
>
>--
>Blessed Cecilia, appear in visions
>To all musicians, appear and inspire:
>Translated Daughter, come down and startle
>Composing mortals with immortal fire.
Nightingale
> Unsuprisingly, they look remarkably alike. The main differences are minute
> differences in font size and margins.
>
And that, at least for Finale, is the choice of the user.
> The excerpt doesn't call for any slurs, cross-staff beaming, or
> unusual notation (except that for some people, guitar music itself may
> seem unusual).
>
Right - I played a bit of guitar as a teen, but read from tablature.
Matthew Fields
saraband <darw...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 22:57:28 -0700, John Rethorst wrote:
>
>> In article <nobody-07CE83....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>> John Rethorst <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>
>>> This PDF document contains a one-page score as engraved by Encore, Finale,
>>> Music Press, Overture, Score and Sibelius.
>>
>> The PDF files differed in size. In kilobytes:
>>
>> Encore 292
>> Finale 220
>> Music Press 248
>> Overture 144
>> Score 224
>> Sibelius 252
>
>The prices (most from www.free-scores.com, Music Press price from
>www.graphire.com, and score from www.scoremus.com) in US dollars:
>
>Encore $399
>Finale $399
>Music Press $595
>Overture $289.95
>Score $750
>Sibelius $750
In eras when I saw $749 for Sibelius, Finale was priced at the same
point. Some of these vendors have "academic pricing" options which
complicate things.
Richard White
<sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
> Unsuprisingly, they look remarkably alike. The main differences are minute
> differences in font size and margins.
>
> The excerpt doesn't call for any slurs, cross-staff beaming, or
> unusual notation (except that for some people, guitar music itself may
> seem unusual).
. . . by design. IIRC, the main criterion for the enterprise called for
emulations to come as close as possible to the typeset score presented.
Cloning was the order of the day.
Richard White
Despite having what appears to be a working web site, Graphire Corp. no
longer effectively exists. There is no support and new copies of Music
Press are unavailable. :-(
Joseph Albano
> In article <42df9e4a$0$18647$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,
> Nightingale <sin...@yorku.ca> wrote:
>
>>John Rethorst wrote:
>>
>>>In article <nobody-07CE83....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>>> John Rethorst <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>This PDF document contains a one-page score as engraved by Encore, Finale,
>>>>Music Press, Overture, Score and Sibelius.
>>>
>>>
>>>The PDF files differed in size. In kilobytes:
>>>
>>>Encore 292
>>>Finale 220
>>
>>This is not related to Finale - there is probably a way to create a PDF
>>directly from the program but I've never needed one before & don't know
>>how to do it. The file was created by scanning a printout.
>
>
> Try printing to PDF995 or doing Save as PDF (Finale does that, doesn't it?).
>
When using the current version of Finale with Mac OSX it is possible to
create a PDF directly through the print dialogue box. Without OSX (Mac
or PC), according to the Finale manual, the "print > save as" operation
will result in a PostScript Listing file. And then you would need the
adobe distiller. It is also possible to compile the postscript listing
through the file menu, without going through the print dialogue.
I can only vouch for the method I described using Finale with OSX though
because that's the only way I've ever done it. That method works perfectly.
Nick Roche
wrote:
>This PDF document contains a one-page score as engraved by Encore,
>Finale, Music Press, Overture, Score and Sibelius
I have trouble reading engravings and I wanted to hear it so I
produced a seventh version E&OE using Guitar Pro (which took me nearly
an hour). No doubt this will amuse some of you and annoy others. I've
printed it to a PDF file (Elegy.pdf) which can be found temporarily
at:
http://freespace.virgin.net/n.roche/
It is not pretty but it seems to work apart from the sign to coda part
which is a feature of Guitar Pro unknown to me. I didn't dare print
the standard notation (Which appears to be almost entirely in
quavers).
Have I come anywhere near to a playable fingering for the piece?
Nightingale
>>> This is not related to Finale - there is probably a way to create a
>>> PDF directly from the program but I've never needed one before &
>>> don't know how to do it. The file was created by scanning a printout.
>>
>>
>>
>> Try printing to PDF995 or doing Save as PDF (Finale does that, doesn't
>> it?).
>>
>
> When using the current version of Finale with Mac OSX it is possible to
> create a PDF directly through the print dialogue box. Without OSX (Mac
> or PC), according to the Finale manual, the "print > save as" operation
> will result in a PostScript Listing file. And then you would need the
> adobe distiller.
I'm using Finale 2002 on Windows 98 - now that you mention it, this does
look familiar. I remember reading something about this, but not ever
trying it, because I don't have the Adobe program, and I don't have a
PostScript printer installed. (Old system, I know. I've had it for
years now, and it was purchased second-hand - for now it does what I
need, even though Finale takes a while to load large files.)
Larry Deack
> I have trouble reading engravings and I wanted to hear it so I
> produced a seventh version E&OE using Guitar Pro (which took me nearly
> an hour). No doubt this will amuse some of you and annoy others. I've
> printed it to a PDF file (Elegy.pdf) which can be found temporarily
> at:
>
> http://freespace.virgin.net/n.roche/
>
> It is not pretty but it seems to work apart from the sign to coda part
> which is a feature of Guitar Pro unknown to me. I didn't dare print
> the standard notation (Which appears to be almost entirely in
> quavers).
>
> Have I come anywhere near to a playable fingering for the piece?
You seem to be close after a quick look I did on screen. It's
interesting that there are no fingering. I need to print them out for a
better look but here are a couple of quick things that may help.
In mm3 the A is tied but you seem to have it repeated. Your fingering
here cuts off the low F# of the bm7. Since the A is tied, and dies
relatively quickly, and is a repeat to the previous idea from mm1 you
can shift to the 7th position barre on the F# which you can get on the
5th string and sustain it through the odd (to my ear) harmony at this point.
You seem to show a down strum at the bm7 but I would do it with RH
fingers rolling it and do the same thing for the b7 at mm7.
I did the first measure open strings except the top. This means I drop
the high B and play the e open as I shift up for the high e. The voice
carries over without actually holding it. Your fingering does hold the B
but I still like the sound of the open strings ringing to support the
high e.
Your way works too :-) I'll look at more if you want to go over the
fingerings since none were provided. Too bad nobody recorded it. Maybe I
can work on it and post something in the next couple of days. Some if it
sounds odd to me but my ear seems to adapt as I play it.
Steve Latham
If we're taking opinions, I'd have to say I like the Finale and the Overture
best at first glance. There's probably more differences to look into but I
also know that many of the difference can be accounted for by using other
fonts and tweaking the defaults too, so there's a lot to look at.
Steve
"Joseph Albano" <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:HxCDe.2164$6f....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Steve Latham
"Joseph Albano" <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:EmRDe.14829$aY6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Steve Latham
both are freeware but PDF995 sends you to their website everytime you print
as PDF, cutePDF has been working flawlessly for me (though it's XP and
Finale 2004)
Steve
"Nightingale" <sin...@yorku.ca> wrote in message
news:42dffee4$0$18649$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
Steve Latham
"John Rethorst" <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:nobody-7F0666....@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article
> <whitcopress-21...@dialup-4.240.243.13.dial1.phoenix1.level3.net>,
> whitc...@earthkink.net (Richard White) wrote:
>
>> Despite having what appears to be a working web site, Graphire Corp. no
>> longer effectively exists. There is no support and new copies of Music
>> Press are unavailable. :-(
>
> raises a
> good question, though - why so many notation programs for what is going to
> be a
> relatively miniscule market? IAC, thanks again for your contribution.
John, it seems to me we started with proprietary systems for certain IBM
computers, and then, we got things like Finale for PCs (back when PC still
meant personal computer). I'm sure there was a big investment for Coda, but
they made a good product. An expensive product (but hey, Photoshop's not
cheap!). I'd say part of the proliferation came from other companies who
figured they could do the same thing for a fraction of the cost, and outsell
Finale. Obviously, there's people who never need cross-staff beaming or
similar more "advanced" notation, so they wouldn't even have to incorporate
them. It seems to me that those "start ups" were a reaction to the market,
whereas some others may have been more intentionally a reaction against
coda's market domination (if there was such a thing). Still others seem to
have sprung from the notation portions of sequencing programs that have come
of their own (thus didn't have the start up costs because they were being
supported by the sequencing side of the program). And I guess now if most of
them are selling, there's still a pretty good market for them.
I think there's a lot of hobbyists out there too - and many of these
programs are geared towards that market - not unlike the digital photo
market - some people simply want to add captions, while some want to get in
and do some serious editing at the pixel level and beyond - I'm thinking of
music teachers making exercises, church musicians making arrangements, and
so on, not to mention kids with more money than they should have, being able
to buy indiscriminately. Sorry, waxing cynical here :-).
But I think the market may be a little larger (albeit not all
"professional") than you may have imagined???
Best,
Steve
Matanya Ophee
>It's
>interesting that there are no fingering.
Not interesting at all. When I first posted this on my web site in
1997, 8 years ago,
http://www.orphee.com/elegy.htm
it seemed to me that if any one needed to be spoon-fed with fingering
for such a cutsey little lollipop, they have no business playing the
guitar. No one ever gave me fingerings for Romanza when I first
learned it some 48 years ago, yet I was perfectly able to use it to
great effect in seducing my audiences, particularly those members of
the female persuasion I was able to corner into quiet seclusion with
candles and wine. It's the other kind of fingering I was mainly
concerned with, if you get my drift...
This Elegy is in the same class and can serve the same purpose, if one
can understand that it doesn't matter how it is engraved and whether
it is fingered or not. What matters is if you can understand what this
kind of profligacy can do to your macho self-esteem...
Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794
http://www.orphee.com
http://www.livejournal.com/users/matanya/
Larry Deack
It is not hard to come up with some fingering as both Nick and I have
done but it is also obvious that there are many solutions. In Romance I
really do not see many variations in fingering for any given version.
There are many small changes in each version of Romance I've seen and
even changes of the notes but this elegy seems to offer more room for
various fingering solutions.
This piece is more complex than romance for the player and the
listener. Why are there no recordings for this project? That would have
allowed more people enjoy what this project is about... the music. Let's
hear the music. :-)
choro-nik
48 years ago, he says, talking of fingerings.
--
choro-nik
********
"Matanya Ophee" <m.o...@orphee.com> wrote in message
news:gjn0e1pghba7os7qq...@4ax.com...
Richard F. Sayage
"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:cgPDe.499$Ut5...@news.itd.umich.edu...
Size of the files is fairly meaningless. This has to do with quality of
print via your PDF package, resolution, DPI, etc...
Price-wise....
Encore is available for $349.00 Retail, including shipping.
Upgrades (term is used loosely :-) from Finale or other packages costs
$119.00 plus shipping
Academic Versions (proof required) costs $219.00 plus shipping
5 User Lab Pack costs $649.00 plus shipping
License Pack with a minimum of 10 users costs $84.99 per user (minimum cost
is $849.00) plus shipping
Prices apply to Win and Mac Versions
Discussions regarding the utility of any package ... one better than the
other.... etc.... are of zero interest. Discussions are archived in the
google log.
I've used the others, I use Encore.
Kind Regards,
Richard F. Sayage
Savage Classical GT
Bay Shore, NY 11706
www.savageclassical.com
Remove ZEROSPAM to reply...thx
Matanya Ophee
Matanya Ophee
> It is not hard to come up with some fingering as both Nick and I have
>done but it is also obvious that there are many solutions. In Romance I
>really do not see many variations in fingering for any given version.
>There are many small changes in each version of Romance I've seen and
>even changes of the notes but this elegy seems to offer more room for
>various fingering solutions.
So what?
>
> This piece is more complex than romance for the player and the
>listener. Why are there no recordings for this project? That would have
>allowed more people enjoy what this project is about... the music. Let's
>hear the music. :-)
There is a MIDI file on my web site you can listen to. Right here:
http://www.orphee.com/elegy.mid
Now if this sound too mechanical fir seduction purposes, why, I am
sure you could provide a live version in no time at all...:-)
Young Generation
anything to do with the notation programs? I have always understood
cautionary accidentals to be mandatory. And they are inconsistent. Some
have a cautionary accidental on the C, but not on the A. Almost all of the
examples omit the sharp before the second D. It's a D sharp, but even if it
was D natural, it would require an accidental.
Of the six examples, only two give meas. 3 correctly, Rethorst and
Spreadbury. One changes "D.C. at <segno> e poi la Coda" to "D.S. al Coda."
That's wrong. And those instructions should be above the staff, not buried
in the copyright notices, where a sight-reading musician might miss them.
And most skilled editors would set the Coda apart, as is done only in the
Sibelius example, who also put the D.C. instructions above the staff in
bold face. (Again, it assists the sight-reading musician.) Spreadbury is
the logical winner. If only he'd not forgotten the A cautionary natural
inmeas.3.
I listened to Mr.Ofee's MIDI. It sounds like a music box, not a guitar,
Russian or otherwise. Doesn't he realize that guitars sound an octave lower
than written. Elegy for music box is an oxymoron. Ordinarily the repeats
are omitted in a Da Capo.
And if it's really a work from WW_II, why isn't a note made to that effect.
Its harmonies are really too slick for a composer who reportedly died in
1837. Copyright?
Ciao, Ricki
Young Generation, Inc.
============================
"choro-nik" <chor...@tvcom.net> wrote in message
news:Pa0Ee.12430$Pf3....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Richard F. Sayage
"Young Generation" <genera...@verizon.com> wrote in message
news:nt8Ee.37$S72.11@trndny06...
Whether or not any of the above is correct (I'm not into arguing
anything of late), this was an "emulation" exercise of the original score as
given to any of us by Matanya. Please bear that in mind.
Rich
--
Richard F. Sayage
Savage Classical GT
Bay Shore, NY 11706
www.savageclassical.com
Remove ZEROSPAM to reply...thx
> ============================
Young Generation
engraving with the errors of the model? Standsbury seems to have risen above
that, and consequently his is the most professional of the group. Lara's
example seems to remove some accidentals.
I use software (no longer available) that would correctly and automatically
enter the
accidentals in meas. 3 from real time input.
Ciao, Ricardo.
=========================
"Richard F. Sayage" <rsay...@ZEROSPAMsavageclassical.com> wrote in message
news:809Ee.1432$sf6...@fe08.lga...
Matanya Ophee
I missed that one on my news-reader, so I am answering the kid here:
>
>"Young Generation" <genera...@verizon.com> wrote in message
>news:nt8Ee.37$S72.11@trndny06...
>> The various examples almost all have mistakes in measure 3. Does this
>> have
>> anything to do with the notation programs? I have always understood
>> cautionary accidentals to be mandatory.
Mandatory where? This was a transcription from a Soviet era edition
for the Russian seven-string guitar, where cautionary accidentals are
frowned upon as an insult to the intelligence of a musician.
Obviously, you detected correctly the actual pitches intended even
without cautionary accidentals. What makes you think that other
guitarists need to be spoon-fed with the obvious and are not capable,
like you did, to read this properly?
>> That's wrong. And those instructions should be above the staff, not
>> buried
>> in the copyright notices, where a sight-reading musician might miss them.
>> And most skilled editors would set the Coda apart, as is done only in the
>> Sibelius example, who also put the D.C. instructions above the staff in
>> bold face. (Again, it assists the sight-reading musician.)
Obviously, you are not familiar with standard engraving practices in
the publishing world. I would suggest some remedial reading on the
subject, if I was sure you can actually read, and if that fails,
please examine some musical editions by the leading publishers. At any
rate, putting repeat signs under the staff is part of _my_ house style
and consistently used in the more than 150 musical editions I
published in the last 26 years, including more that a thousand
different pieces of music. If you choose to do otherwise in _your_
publishing house style, that's entirely your choice to make. But don't
lecture me on what's right and wrong here.
>> I listened to Mr.Ofee's MIDI. It sounds like a music box, not a guitar,
>> Russian or otherwise.
Indeed it is. So what? that MIDI file was generated directly out of
the Score file using a freeware third party utility which did not
recognize the octave transposition. This is not a commercial issue,
but a freebie given to all. Sorry I could not afford the time to
monkey around with this, for free. The idea was to give people a first
impression of the music, so that they would like it enough to learn
the piece. As such it works. Of course, if you wish, you can always
take that MIDI file and run it through your synthesizer and "record"
it properly. But personally, I would be much more interested in
hearing your live performance of this. There is no need to replace the
music box with washtub.
>>Doesn't he realize that guitars sound an octave
>> lower than written.
Is that so? an octave lower? Gee, thanks, I appreciate the short
lesson in music theory. One learns the most amazing things in
RMCG...:-)
>> And if it's really a work from WW_II, why isn't a note made to that
>> effect.
read the short introduction again. No one know what really means here.
The piece is attributed to Vyssotsky. No one know who really wrote it
and when.
>> Its harmonies are really too slick for a composer who reportedly died in
>> 1837. Copyright?
Determining the harmonic language of a composer strictly by the date
of his death, without ever having even looked at the actual music
published by this composer, is to put gently, plain stupidity. The
1997 copyright date is relevant only to my transcription, not to the
original music. When we had this emulation exercise a while back, I
allowed everybody to make new engravings of the piece, provided they
kept my copyright notice. They all did, except this new guy with the
TAB. Too bad.
Richard White
Rethorst <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> In article
> <whitcopress-21...@dialup-4.240.243.13.dial1.phoenix1.level3.net>,
> whitc...@earthkink.net (Richard White) wrote:
>
> > Despite having what appears to be a working web site, Graphire Corp. no
> > longer effectively exists. There is no support and new copies of Music
> > Press are unavailable. :-(
>
> Ouch, since I gather it was a good program, and its output is nice. It
raises a
> good question, though - why so many notation programs for what is going
to be a
> relatively miniscule market? IAC, thanks again for your contribution.
Yes, it's a bite for us. IMO, the market is not miniscule at all:
technology has made composers of us all! At least technology offers
ready-made tools and easy methods of delivery for what appears to be a
burgeoning of creativity without the traditional 'filters.' Perhaps it has
been there all along?
I appreciated the opportunity to participate, although it was undoubtedly
the last time for me. :-)
Best,
Richard White
<genera...@verizon.com> wrote:
> I am not certain what an"emulation excercise" might be.
. . . I'll bet you really do. ;-)
Nick Roche
wrote quite correctly and without excessive righteous indignation:
>When we had this emulation exercise a while back, I
>allowed everybody to make new engravings of the piece, provided they
>kept my copyright notice. They all did, except this new guy with the
>TAB. Too bad.
and I did feel guilty about it although I'm not sure you'd want to put
your name to such a sub-standard version. If it is any consolation I
did carefully type the copyright and everything else into the Guitar
Pro file and, if I had published that, honour would have been
satisfied (but hardly anyone could have used it).. Unfortunately there
was no way I could find to persuade Guitar Pro to print any of it. In
fact there is a great deal that GP leaves out when it prints which is
a shame because it does in fact provide a lot of useful guitar
specific features.
Tab|edit does appear to be a more polished product, particularly for
printing but also for expressing more than one voice on a single
stave. I only have a "read" version so I couldn't use it for this
exercise.
Anyway my humble apologies to Matanya Ophee of Orphe'e- I'll remove
the offending file from my web site if you wish!
Matthew Fields
have opened the world of formatted, kerned text to all of us who
once typed everything--or wrote it out longhand. Such bells and whistles
as spelling check have improved communication a fair bit.
So it's not surprising that many people have thought "Why not a word
processor for music notation. It ought to be no more difficult than
formatting paragraphs." They've been wrong. Legible, correct music
notation is 6 or 8 orders of magnitude more complex in its underlying
rules than beautifully typeset plain-Roman-letter text.
And the tasks it is used for--what business-engineering people call
the use-cases--have no natural analog in text. While text is subject
to revision, it's not subject to anything analogous to part-extraction
or repagination for page turns during rests--nor for the interleaving
of all three of those operations, which are fundamental to musical
productivity, and which are areas of "drudgery" where computing has
appeared to offer advantages.
The products surveyed in this list include one made by a
barely-competent programmer concerned with the needs of typographers
to set a finished score which will never be revised (Score), as well
as several products which started as simple-minded analogs of
word-processors and grew in immense complexity to accomodate fixes to
the basic mismatches between their models and actual music notation.
Some of those have actually been re-factored to remove their arcane
original history. Others have not--and reflect original concepts
dreamed up by programmers to make music notational data more like MIDI
programming, or more like word-processing (Finale comes to mind
as a product which has both refactorings and an enormous library of
deprecated but maintained arcana [music has no such thing as an EVPU,
for instance]).
I've played with quite a few of these things, and I'm convinced that
none of them quite gets the fundamentals of music notation right, but
you can more or less efficiently learn to work around any of them,
and with the speed of computers today, you can accomplish the actual
use-cases of notation faster via the workarounds than in pen and ink.
Larry Deack
-Snipped Interesting Comments-
> I've played with quite a few of these things, and I'm convinced that
> none of them quite gets the fundamentals of music notation right,
It seems to me that there have been some changes in music notation
since computerization. Music notation programs have morphed into mixed
use tools for encoding various forms of music.
The typographic encoding has a different focus from a format like MIDI
and they are both very different from a WAV file. We see programs that
do 2 of the 3 and some that do all 3 in one program but very few
programs do just standard notation. There are even music encodings that
help us analyze the music but these programs don't seem to do notation
and most of the notation programs don't analyze the music.
Since standard* music notation is a code and not a recording it cannot
be used to reproduce how a musician may have rendered the music without
making many assumptions not indicated in the score but well known by
musicians who read standard notation. Information is missing from
standard notation and from MIDI if we are trying to understand how music
is actually played by real musicians, and why we may never know exactly
how Bach sounded playing his own music.
It's hard to imagine writing a program that can deal with all
encodings of all formats and provide automated formatting for the
complexities that each imposes on the internal representation of the
music. Software bloat and feature creep seem to be the path music
notation programs have gone and many of them have invented their own
proprietary formats that confuse the standards* even more.
The user interfaces we use today are not very good at understanding
what we want to do. Many people would love to have a computer program
that could listen to music and produce a score that makes as much sense
as any of the examples of scores used for this comparison. I doubt that
we will see that anytime soon. It seems to be something even more
difficult than voice recognition and with less interest in solving it.
* "The best thing about standards is that there are so many to
choose from." Andrew Tanenbaum - Computer Networks
Matanya Ophee
>Unfortunately there
>was no way I could find to persuade Guitar Pro to print any of it.
Perhaps this package is not all that Pro...
>Anyway my humble apologies to Matanya Ophee of Orphe'e- I'll remove
>the offending file from my web site if you wish!
Please do. I'd appreciate it very much.
Matanya Ophee
>
>The products surveyed in this list
First of all, let's get one thing clear: this compilation was not a
survey of six engraving packages, but an attempt by five different
engravers in five different packages, to emulate the the "ur"
engraving of this piece, the one I did in 1997 in Score and posted on
my web site as freebie to all.
The only question then, when this was discussed on RMCG, was if any of
these packages can EMULATE my engraving and produce a page that looks
exactly like it. You can judge for yourself to what extent this was
accomplished.
>include one made by a
>barely-competent programmer concerned with the needs of typographers
>to set a finished score which will never be revised (Score),
There are two point made in this sentence:
1. Leland Smith competence as a programmer
2. The ability of anyone to revise a Score file.
I am not willing to discuss the first, since I am not a programmer,
but a user. I have been using the Score program the produce my award
winning editions since 1989. The program, last update was some 8-9
years ago, still works magnificently and produces the best looking
music typography available today.
As for point 2: if you really think so, then I you obviously do not
know a thing about the Score program. One aspect of it which still
keeps it in the tool kit of most major publishers to this day is the
powerful editing capabilities of the program.
Matthew Fields
I've been working with Score since 1985. I'm well aware of its
capabilities. I'm sure you haven't been working with it that long because
it was only available on isolated computers at Stanford at that time.
Matanya Ophee
If so, how can you possibly say that it was "to set a finished score
which will never be revised"?
> I'm sure you haven't been working with it that long because
>it was only available on isolated computers at Stanford at that time.
I bought my first Score package for the PC in 1987. Took me a while to
understand from the original manual how to work it, but eventually I
figured it out. My first edition using Score was Roberto Sierra's
Triptico which was published in 1989. That is a fact enshrined in the
public record. If you doubt it, I invite you to examine the copyright
date on the edition, and the date it was registered in the Copyright
Office. I also invite to examine the edition itself from which it will
be apparent to you that it was engraved in Score.
For a complete history of the Score program, see this:
http://www.scoremus.com/score.html
Arthur Ness
I have seen so much trashy notation on the Internet, and even in published
editions. Some of it was so screwed up that it was unplayable when placed
before a professional guitarist. One also has to have anunderstanding of
the purpose of musical notation: Instructions for Performance. It is not a
record of what was performed.
As an undergraduate we were all expected to purchase and consult a book on
music manuscript preparation made by a Hollywood studio music copyist.
Turner? Wish I had my copy again.
I was just looking nostalgically at my three old Mont Blac pens. Like the
engineering nerds with their slide rules on their belts, we had our manual
under arm and pen in pocket. Oh dear. And Cameo Music Reproduction, near the
Brown Derby at Hollywood and Vine. I studied privately with Julius Gold in
Hollywood. He would get red in the face and curse when he found a mistake
in my notation. He even made me do some of my lessons in Bernhard Ziehn
Method on Ozalid paper.<g> Guess he thought I could at least get a job at
Cameo.
ajn.
"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:gkbEe.520$Ut5...@news.itd.umich.edu...
Arthur Ness
I have seen so much trashy notation on the Internet, and even in published
editions. Some of it was so screwed up that it was unplayable when placed
before a professional guitarist. One also has to have anunderstanding of
the purpose of musical notation: Instructions for Performance. It is not a
record of what was performed.
As an undergraduate we were all expected to purchase and consult a book on
music manuscript preparation made by a Hollywood studio music copyist.
Turner? Wish I had my copy again.
I was just looking nostalgically at my three old Mont Blac pens. Like the
engineering nerds with their slide rules on their belts, we had our manual
under arm and pen in pocket. Oh dear. And Cameo Music Reproduction, near the
Brown Derby at Hollywood and Vine. I studied privately with Julius Gold in
Hollywood. He would get red in the face and curse when he found a mistake
in my notation. He even made me do some of my lessons in Bernhard Ziehn
Method on Ozalid paper.<g> Guess he thought I could at least get a job at
Cameo.
ajn.
"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:gkbEe.520$Ut5...@news.itd.umich.edu...
Arthur Ness
"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message news:gkbEe.520$Ut5...@news.itd.umich.edu...
Richard F. Sayage
>I am not certain what an"emulation excercise" might be. To make an
> engraving with the errors of the model?
Exactly, but I remain silent regarding what "you" perceive as errors. I
make zero judgment. As to what follows, at least one thing seems
clear.......
Standsbury seems to have risen above
> that, and consequently his is the most professional of the group. Lara's
> example seems to remove some accidentals.
This is unworthy of a response, since it becomes clear you do not (or
did not) yet have an understanding of what was attempted. I will say
this.....If someone changed "their" version of the score, then their attempt
to emulate the original as proferred by Matanya gets a failing grade. If in
fact, that was their intent!
>
> I use software (no longer available) that would correctly and
> automatically
> enter the
> accidentals in meas. 3 from real time input.
I prefer to have the editing capability to push accidentals when and
where I wish. The fact is that Encore corrects accidentals on the fly. I
have to push it to maintain the accidental marking as a score requires.
>
> Ciao, Ricardo.
Richard
Young Generation
> "Richard F. Sayage" <rsay...@ZEROSPAMsavageclassical.com> wrote:
>
> I missed that one on my news-reader, so I am answering the kid here:
>>
>>news:nt8Ee.37$S72.11@trndny06...
>>> The various examples almost all have mistakes in measure 3. Does this
>>> have
>>> anything to do with the notation programs? I have always understood
>>> cautionary accidentals to be mandatory.
>
> for the Russian seven-string guitar, where cautionary accidentals are
> frowned upon as an insult to the intelligence of a musician.
If the work is published in the west, it should use western conventions of
musical notation. Besides, the 2d.D needs a sharp. That's not cautionary.
Did you do the next to last example? It has cautionary accidentals. It was
the other examples that lack them. Guess cautionary accidentals are OK in
Soviet Russia, too. Russian frown too much.
My teacher calls them for cortesia (courtesy). Maybe that way you will
understand what they are.
> Obviously, you detected correctly the actual pitches intended even
> without cautionary accidentals. What makes you think that other
> guitarists need to be spoon-fed with the obvious and are not capable,
> like you did, to read this properly?
Many professional musicians read music like this a vista (site reading).
They do not have
time to stop and figure out what the right note should be. Musicians expect
cautionary
accidentals and therefore are confused when they are absent. My teacher
says,
good edition must have them. We studied at Rossini's Mose (Ricordi
publisher) for cautionary accidentals.
In the recording studio, three missing cautiuonary accidentals
could easily cost $100 each. My teacher asks you, Maestro, <<Since when is
musical notation a guessing game?>>
>>> That's wrong. And those instructions should be above the staff, not
>>> buried
>>> in the copyright notices, where a sight-reading musician might miss
>>> them.
>>> And most skilled editors would set the Coda apart, as is done only in
>>> the
>>> Sibelius example, who also put the D.C. instructions above the staff in
>>> bold face. (Again, it assists the sight-reading musician.)
>
Ted Ross (my teachers book) says this:
<<The best policy is to place [D.C. al Segno] where it is
<<unobstructed and readily seen.>>
Yours doesn't follow that warning, especially since it
is hidden among all that text at the bottom of the page. Blacker type might
have helped. Of course D.C. for minuets with trio goes at the bottom.
There is much room ABOVE the staff, and putting it below according to "my
house style" creates unnecessary clutter.
> Obviously, you are not familiar with standard engraving practices in
> the publishing world. I would suggest some remedial reading on the
> subject, if I was sure you can actually read, and if that fails,
> please examine some musical editions by the leading publishers. At any
> rate, putting repeat signs under the staff is part of _my_ house style
> and consistently used in the more than 150 musical editions I
> published in the last 26 years, including more that a thousand
> different pieces of music. If you choose to do otherwise in _your_
> publishing house style, that's entirely your choice to make. But don't
> lecture me on what's right and wrong here.
Well, I guess you got it wrong 1000 times. The point _here_ is that it is
obscured. and the player might easily miss it. And the space before the Coda
is also recommended in that Ross book my teacher showed me. He gets very
upset when I make mistake in musical notation.
Will you publish my guitar pieces if I send them to you, Maestro Orfee?
They are lullabyes
for my baby brother, aged 1/2 year. My papa is famous artist, and draws
cover for you too.
>
>>> I listened to Mr.Orfee's MIDI. It sounds like a music box, not a guitar,
>>> Russian or otherwise.
>
> Indeed it is. So what? that MIDI file was generated directly out of
> the Score file using a freeware third party utility which did not
> recognize the octave transposition. This is not a commercial issue,
> but a freebie given to all. Sorry I could not afford the time to
> monkey around with this, for free. The idea was to give people a first
> impression of the music, so that they would like it enough to learn
> the piece. As such it works. Of course, if you wish, you can always
> take that MIDI file and run it through your synthesizer and "record"
> it properly. But personally, I would be much more interested in
> hearing your live performance of this. There is no need to replace the
> music box with washtub.
I'll send it with my lullabyes. You play it too fast. Elegia is very sad
song.
>
>>>Doesn't he realize that guitars sound an octave
>>> lower than written.
>
> Is that so? an octave lower? Gee, thanks, I appreciate the short
> lesson in music theory. One learns the most amazing things in
> RMCG...:-)
My teacher showed me on piano. Surprised you didn't know.
>
>>> And if it's really a work from WW_II, why isn't a note made to that
>>> effect.
>
> read the short introduction again. No one know what really means here.
> The piece is attributed to Vyssotsky. No one know who really wrote it
> and when.
>
>>> Its harmonies are really too slick for a composer who reportedly died in
>>> 1837. Copyright?
> Determining the harmonic language of a composer strictly by the date
> of his death, without ever having even looked at the actual music
> published by this composer, is to put gently, plain stupidity. The
> 1997 copyright date is relevant only to my transcription, not to the
> original music.
You wrote that the piece might be from WW_II. My teachers says yes. Slick
harmonies. He thinks composer is Italian. Will find piece soon.
>When we had this emulation exercise a while back, I
> allowed everybody to make new engravings of the piece, provided they
> kept my copyright notice. They all did, except this new guy with the
> TAB. Too bad.
>
>
Richard White
Rethorst <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> In article
> <whitcopress-21...@dialup-4.240.243.13.dial1.phoenix1.level3.net>,
> whitc...@earthkink.net (Richard White) wrote:
>
> > . . . by design. IIRC, the main criterion for the enterprise called for
> > emulations to come as close as possible to the typeset score presented.
> > Cloning was the order of the day.
>
> For the first three done, anyway: Score, Music Press and Encore. The Finale,
> Overture and Sibelius were simply done as examples of scoring in those
programs.
. . . guess that puts me in the clear (Music Press). ;-)
Larry Deack
> Factoring that out, file size becomes interesting as an
> indicator of how efficiently the program creates the objects drawn on screen and
> printed.
That depends on the driver for the output device and the data you feed
them from the application. I wouldn't be so quick to say anything about
how efficient a sample of 1 is. This could be the worst case for one
program/driver and the best for another. Run many more sample sets and
maybe you could say something meaningful from the data.
> Fonts are analogous: those created by professional houses, e.g. Adobe
> and Bitstream, use fewer vector curves per symbol than the less expensive fonts
> that flooded the market a few years ago, and were created by scanning, thus
> producing many more vectors per symbol, which must be rasterized to be printed.
> IAC I posted the sizes in response to a question.
Fewer curves per symbol can also be lower quality. The quality of the
font depends on the designer and how well they can use their tools to
get what they want. I can see how you might assume this but I would
again say that you don't have the data to say much more than opinion.
Matthew Fields
John Rethorst <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>In article
><whitcopress-21...@dialup-4.240.243.13.dial1.phoenix1.level3.net>,
> whitc...@earthkink.net (Richard White) wrote:
>
>> . . . by design. IIRC, the main criterion for the enterprise called for
>> emulations to come as close as possible to the typeset score presented.
>> Cloning was the order of the day.
>
>For the first three done, anyway: Score, Music Press and Encore. The Finale,
>Overture and Sibelius were simply done as examples of scoring in those programs.
>
Well, they sure came out close enough as clones that this particular
output batch wouldn't sway me in any particular direction.
Matanya Ophee
>
>Over on http://www.e-borneo.com/ab/cgforum.html, a poster said:
>
>> I played through the piece and noticed that measure 9 through 12 are
>> identical both melodically and harmonically to the second phrase of
>> Tchaikovsky's meltingly gorgeous main theme from his Symphony #6 in B minor,
>> Pathetique.
An interesting observation. I'll look into that. Actually, it is quite
possible. Soviet composers did not have any hesitation in ripping off
anybody and putting their own name on it. Still going on today,
actually...
Richard White
<sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
> In article <nobody-6795CE....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> John Rethorst <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >In article
> ><whitcopress-21...@dialup-4.240.243.13.dial1.phoenix1.level3.net>,
> > whitc...@earthkink.net (Richard White) wrote:
> >
> >> . . . by design. IIRC, the main criterion for the enterprise called for
> >> emulations to come as close as possible to the typeset score presented.
> >> Cloning was the order of the day.
> >
> >For the first three done, anyway: Score, Music Press and Encore. The Finale,
> >Overture and Sibelius were simply done as examples of scoring in those
programs.
> >
>
> Well, they sure came out close enough as clones that this particular
> output batch wouldn't sway me in any particular direction.
. . . nothing like success :-)
Nick Roche
wrote:
>>Nick Roche <ni...@nroche.net> wrote:
>>I'll remove
>>the offending file from my web site if you wish!
>Please do. I'd appreciate it very much.
Done! Sorry to have upset you.
m.o...@orphee.com
exactly (almost) as Jim stated. The melody and harmony are the same but
the Elegy is in 6/8, and the passage in the Pathetique is in 4/4.
Anyway, my congratulations to Jim for spotting this.
The quotation can be understood in several ways. If it is indeed a
quotation from Tchaikowsky, it would instantly validate my suspicion
that the author of this piece was not Mikhail Vyssotsky (1781-1837) but
some one contemporary with, or living <i>after</i> Tchaikowsky. On the
other hand, we do know that Tchaikowsky did in fact use one theme in
his works which he borrowed from an earlier guitarist. The theme in
question is the Love Theme from the Queen of Spades, which appeared
first in the 1817 Exercise No. 2 for the Russian seven-string guitar by
Andrei Sychra.
But before we can assume that Tchaikowsky borrowed from Vyssotsky as he
did from Sychra, we have to find the Vyssotsky 19th original. That,
unfortunately, is not known to me, and I do have on hand the Complete
Works of Vyssotsky. The only source I know for the Elegy, is a mid 1980
Soviet edition, which unfortunately does not give the source.
m.o...@orphee.com
> There is no need to replace the music box with washtub.
Well, I should hav eknown better, but I did replace the music box with
a washtub.
http://www.orphee.com/elegy.mid
Now if only I knew how to replace the piano sound with Richard Yates'
guitar soundfont....
Young Generation
tempo. Too fast!! Slow down!!! Sounds like an organ grinder with a
dancing monkey.
Elegy is a sad song of death. And the Tchaikovsky reference to his death
symphony may be part of the sad meaning in this piece. Italian composer,
surely. Now to find him.
Ciao, Ricardo
Young Generation Enterprises, Inc.
<m.o...@orphee.com> wrote in message
news:1122144729.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Nightingale
Matthew Fields wrote:
> In article <nobody-6795CE....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> John Rethorst <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>>In article
>><whitcopress-21...@dialup-4.240.243.13.dial1.phoenix1.level3.net>,
>>whitc...@earthkink.net (Richard White) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> . . . by design. IIRC, the main criterion for the enterprise called for
>>>emulations to come as close as possible to the typeset score presented.
>>>Cloning was the order of the day.
>>
>>For the first three done, anyway: Score, Music Press and Encore. The Finale,
>>Overture and Sibelius were simply done as examples of scoring in those programs.
>>
>
>
> Well, they sure came out close enough as clones that this particular
> output batch wouldn't sway me in any particular direction.
>
What would you look for in deciding which program to use?
--
Io la Musica son, ch'ai dolci accenti
So far tranquillo ogni turbato core,
Et or di nobil ira et or d'amore
Poss'infiammar le più gelate menti.
Matthew Fields
Nightingale <sin...@yorku.ca> wrote:
>
>
>Matthew Fields wrote:
>
>> In article <nobody-6795CE....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>> John Rethorst <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>
>>>In article
>>><whitcopress-21...@dialup-4.240.243.13.dial1.phoenix1.level3.net>,
>>>whitc...@earthkink.net (Richard White) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> . . . by design. IIRC, the main criterion for the enterprise called for
>>>>emulations to come as close as possible to the typeset score presented.
>>>>Cloning was the order of the day.
>>>
>>>For the first three done, anyway: Score, Music Press and Encore. The Finale,
>>>Overture and Sibelius were simply done as examples of scoring in those
>programs.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, they sure came out close enough as clones that this particular
>> output batch wouldn't sway me in any particular direction.
>>
>
>What would you look for in deciding which program to use?
If I had to start from scratch, I'd test-drive all 6 plus a bunch of
others in a number of ways that'd put 'em all to shame.
Then I'd pick the one that least interferes with my work.
It's conceiveable that the user manual would be the deciding factor
among the finalists. If a program can do what I need to do but I
can't find out how readily using the manual, I'm likely to pass
that one over for one where I can find it in the manual.
Michael Bednarek
White) wrote in rec.music.theory:
>In article <XzfEe.528$Ut5...@news.itd.umich.edu>, "Matthew Fields"
><sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
>
>> In article <nobody-6795CE....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>> John Rethorst <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> >In article
>> ><whitcopress-21...@dialup-4.240.243.13.dial1.phoenix1.level3.net>,
>> > whitc...@earthkink.net (Richard White) wrote:
>> >
>> >> . . . by design. IIRC, the main criterion for the enterprise called for
>> >> emulations to come as close as possible to the typeset score presented.
>> >> Cloning was the order of the day.
>> >
>> >For the first three done, anyway: Score, Music Press and Encore. The Finale,
>> >Overture and Sibelius were simply done as examples of scoring in those
>programs.
>> >
>>
>> Well, they sure came out close enough as clones that this particular
>> output batch wouldn't sway me in any particular direction.
>
>. . . nothing like success :-)
There are some subtle differences, though. Take yours, Richard: why are
all dotted crotchet rests in the middle strand of the Music Press score
written as crotchet + quaver? No other score of the six does that. The
Music Press score is also the only one without bar numbers and the
length of the note stems in the outer strands seems too short.
The fundamental flaw in the use of accidentals in bar 3 has already been
mentioned, and I'm glad to say the my favourite program did by default
insert the natural in front of the d"; I'm also wondering about the need
for the courtesy accidental in the same bar for the f#" - I can't see
any natural f which would require it.
The following remarks are my personal observations and I precede them
with a big "IMHO".
A major difference between the six presented scores is the inconsistent
placement of rest symbols in the middle strand. Within one bar, I think
they should be at the same horizontal level as much as possible (see the
quaver rests in bars 8 and 14 of the Score and Encore scores which are
at different heights, whereas they are at the same height in Music Press
and Overture). The position of the quaver rests in bar 10 and 30 of the
Sibelius piece is puzzling.
The repeat instruction in Finale (D.S. al Coda) is wrong. Finale also
omits a courtesy natural in bar 7 (a'). The Overture score is the only
one which doesn't have the final chord arpeggiated and which doesn't
have a double bar line between bars 30 and 31 (at the DC/Coda).
The original's repeat instruction "D.C. al segno et poi la Coda" is
neither Italian nor conforms to standard musical convention. The
standard, as I understand it, is "D.C. al coda/Coda" where the coda is
denoted with a crossed upright oval, and the redirection with "al Coda".
See also <http://www.mpa.org/notation/notation.pdf> - thank you, John,
for that link.
All the transcriptions forget that the guitar is a transposing
instrument: it sounds an octave lower than the written pitch and that
should be indicated by an 8 under the treble clef. While that could
possibly be omitted because it can be considered as self evident to the
intended audience, any resulting MIDI files from these transcriptions
should be accordingly adjusted. I'm quite surprised that Matanya Ophee's
own MIDI file does not. BTW, his web site (www.orphee.com) seems to be
frequently inaccessible.
I also think that a good case could be made for omitting the repeats
when playing the da capo, especially for the first section (bars 1-8).
The output of my preferred notation program, MOZART, is available on my
web site. It took me about 30 minutes to prepare. The size of the PDF
file is only 32KB. (The PDF file of the six examples is so big (972KB)
because their musical elements are all, except Overture's, stored as
graphical elements rather than glyphs of a font.)
While MOZART's output is generally comparable to the six examples, it
shows two major deficiencies: the height of 1st/2nd endings indicators
can not be adjusted - they run through the high notes in the second
repeat, and the 2nd ending indicator ends wrongly with a short vertical
line.
Secondly, it can only arpeggiate chords within a strand. As the
arpeggios in this piece are applied to chords formed from the top and
the middle strand, I had to cheat and duplicate notes in the other
strand.
The imperfections for both these features, especially the lack of
adjustability for 1st/2nd ending indicators, make MOZART probably
unsuited for professional engraving. On the other hand, compared to the
prices quoted here earlier for the six programs (US$290 - US$750),
MOZART's price of US$120, combined with what I consider the best note
entry and editing mechanism from a computer keyboard, make it still a
worthy player in this field. The daily contributions of its author,
David Webber, to the MOZART discussion group where he and others provide
friendly support and occasional off-topic morsels make for a happy group
of users.
--
Michael Bednarek http://mbednarek.com/ "POST NO BILLS"
Fiona
"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote
> Nightingale <sin...@yorku.ca> wrote:
> >Matthew Fields wrote:
> >> John Rethorst <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >>>whitc...@earthkink.net (Richard White) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> . . . by design. IIRC, the main criterion for the enterprise called
for
> >>>>emulations to come as close as possible to the typeset score
presented.
> >>>>Cloning was the order of the day.
> >>>
> >>>For the first three done, anyway: Score, Music Press and Encore. The
Finale,
> >>>Overture and Sibelius were simply done as examples of scoring in those
> >>>programs.
> >>
> >> Well, they sure came out close enough as clones that this particular
> >> output batch wouldn't sway me in any particular direction.
> >
> >What would you look for in deciding which program to use?
>
> If I had to start from scratch, I'd test-drive all 6 plus a bunch of
> others in a number of ways that'd put 'em all to shame.
>
> Then I'd pick the one that least interferes with my work.
>
> It's conceiveable that the user manual would be the deciding factor
> among the finalists. If a program can do what I need to do but I
> can't find out how readily using the manual, I'm likely to pass
> that one over for one where I can find it in the manual.
But do you find manuals entertaining? :-)
As a professional writer of manuals (and help-systems) I find it gratifying
to that, someone not only reads manuals but recognises that they are an
integral part of the product. Unfortunately I never been asked to write a
manual for a music package but, never mind.
This comes back to the Entertainment thread, when writing technical
documentation one of the first tacks is identifying the audience (simply
put: basic user, power user, techie, management etc.) and what their
requirements are for the documentation. This affects all subsequent
decisions, style, structure, language, length, etc. And finally when the
document is complete it can be tested for its effectiveness and usability.
While there is definitely an art to writing documentation, there is little
room for personal expression because what matters is that the audience
satisfied. The analogy then with music is that if, in music, was is
important is that the audience is satisfied, then as with documentation the
must be a way to analyse the audience requirements (by some other means than
instinct), before time and money is invested in a project.
Traditionally the only audience analysis seems to have been: "XYZ sells, so
I'll compose like XYZ" and testing has been down to marketing the music and
hoping it sells. Is there a better way?
Fiona
Matthew Fields
I think the distinctions you drew are a matter of the unspoken stylesheets
of the operators, not of any of the software.
Richard F. Sayage
looks at the moment. There are some elegant looking things here, but then
there are some not so good things. Bar lines at the far right, accidentals
scrunched, repeats on top of the music (I figure that can be fixed but then
we find out no it cannot), beams are disconnected and overextended, and use
of text looks to be awkward.
Use of the 8 underneath is redundant, regardless of what anyone else
thinks. It's guitar music. We know where it plays and where it sounds.
If you use it, make it less intrusive.
Most of the other issues you bring up are a question of the human
interaction, not the software. Puzzle all you wish. The other packages are
all far more capable and flexible. Mozart looks very capable to a point,
but there seem to be issues that are software bound. That is unacceptable.
It's understood that you bring these issues up, but you are wrong. I
wouldn't bother using this package, where I have bothered using all the
others (except Score...for no other reason than I did not have it available
to me).
The quaver rests you bring up in the Score and Encore packages were a
matter of copy. Score is the original...Encore the copy. Again, editorial
work, not the software capability. You are bouncing back and forth with the
functionality versus the editorial work and this makes this discussion more
difficult.
You must have little or no experience with the other packages to say
what you do about input. Encore and Overture are extremely easy input and
learning curve packages. Sibelius a little less so. Finale is a freakin'
nightmare to get into, but is very good once there. Among others, Matanya
is the Score expert. I can't comment on it.
--
Richard F. Sayage
Savage Classical GT
Bay Shore, NY 11706
www.savageclassical.com
"Michael Bednarek" <ROT1...@zorqanerx.pbz> wrote in message
news:45q6e1p065k2maju9...@4ax.com...
Larry Deack
>(The PDF file of the six examples is so big (972KB)
> because their musical elements are all, except Overture's, stored as
> graphical elements rather than glyphs of a font.)
I think you are assuming something here that may not be true. Any
representation of any object must be stored in the file or exist on the
system.
It's possible for files to be smaller if the font information is not
stored in the file and the user has that font on their system already.
As far as I can tell this is not what I got as a PDF of the scores since
they all contain the font information and all information needed to
display them on my computer without any font file.
Not sure why you think they are all stored as glyphs nor why you think
that would be more efficient. I suspect you are repeating something you
were told rather than something you actually know about the file formats
and the efficiency of various representations.
Richard White
<ROT1...@zorqanerx.pbz> wrote:
<snip>
>
> There are some subtle differences, though. Take yours, Richard: why are
> all dotted crotchet rests in the middle strand of the Music Press score
> written as crotchet + quaver? No other score of the six does that. The
> Music Press score is also the only one without bar numbers and the
> length of the note stems in the outer strands seems too short.
. . . Good observations. And thanks for the 'softball' questions (as well
as the 'Mozart' advertisement ;-) ) whose answers are the same: they are
personal preferences. This despite the endeavor being an 'emulation'
exercise.
. . . not sure such why a trifle such as this resurrected endeavor is of
such great interest, but who am I to cast aspersions. Have at it. ;-)
. . . enough from me.
Best,
Pete Thomas
> Michael,
> I think the distinctions you drew are a matter of the unspoken stylesheets
> of the operators, not of any of the software.
>
>
Do you mind quoting the text you are replying to? Quite an interesting
thread but hard to follow when you don't always know what the replies
are relating to.
--
Pete Thomas - www.petethomas.co.uk
***********
On-line saxophone exercises, composition and jazz theory courses,
Saxophone Instruction DVD
***********
To reply privately please use the link on my site.
m.o...@orphee.com
>thinks. It's guitar music. We know where it plays and where it sounds.
>If you use it, make it less intrusive.
That's exactly right, Richard. I never use it for solo music. On the
other hand, in chamber music pieces and in vocal music with guitar
accompaniment, It has to be used, so everybody understands where the
music, even if they do not play the guitar.
>Among others, Matanya is the Score expert. I can't comment on it.
Input, like playing the guitar, is a personal thing. Some people are
better at it than others, and as far as I know, no one had ever done a
comparative sudy of speed input between various programs. One reason
Score is still the program of choice for most professional publishers
and the engravers who work for them, is that it allows several ways to
do input, so individual engravers can choose the one that fits them
best. Some people use a MIDI keyboard, some people use a computer
keyboard code entry (me...), and some use third party front end
prograpms. One popular front end program for Score is called
Sibelius...:-)
Personally, I hate doing input, and prefer to either delegate the chore
to someone else, or simply convert Finale and Sibelius using Jan de
Kloe's converters.
m.o...@orphee.com
passage with Tchaikowsky was already posted here a couple of years ago
by Snoopdog (AKA Aryeh Eller).
Credit where credit is due!
Matthew Fields
Pete Thomas <inv...@reply-via-site.com> wrote:
>
>Do you mind quoting the text you are replying to?
My comment that the six outputs showed variations that looked like
individual choice rather than software requirement belongs to the thread
titled "Re: Six Music Notation Programs - engraving comparison".
No precedent to my posting would have added meaning to it in the slightest.
Michael Bednarek
wrote in rec.music.classical.guitar:
>Michael Bednarek wrote:
>
>>(The PDF file of the six examples is so big (972KB)
>> because their musical elements are all, except Overture's, stored as
>> graphical elements rather than glyphs of a font.)
This is getting rather off-topic, and I apologize for that.
> I think you are assuming something here that may not be true. Any
>representation of any object must be stored in the file or exist on the
>system.
But some take up more space than others. Embedded fonts usually take up
less space than a pictorial representation.
> It's possible for files to be smaller if the font information is not
>stored in the file and the user has that font on their system already.
>As far as I can tell this is not what I got as a PDF of the scores since
>they all contain the font information and all information needed to
>display them on my computer without any font file.
Indeed, all the necessary font information is stored in the PDF file.
However, most of these scores don't contain much which needs a font.
Instead, the content is stored as an image.
> Not sure why you think they are all stored as glyphs nor why you think
>that would be more efficient. I suspect you are repeating something you
>were told rather than something you actually know about the file formats
>and the efficiency of various representations.
I'm just observing. When a PDF file of 8 pages weighs in at 994,458
bytes, and I can produce a single page of that score at 31,824 bytes, I
pause briefly and consider possible explanations.
Scores 1, 2, 6 contain no fonts, scores 3 and 5 only for text items, in
score 4 every element except for the score lines and single bar lines
are glyphs, same in my own PDF file.
The respective numbers for filesize are:
1 232,480
2 99,191
3 92,856
4 64,684
5 251,132
6 194,319
mb 31,824
The size of score 5 is explained by its inclusion of a large number of
Times variations (112,797 bytes) for a dozen or so text items, the main
part is stored as PostScript XObjects (113,034 bytes).
I am aware that the size of PDF files can be controlled by various
compression settings, and these can indeed reduce the size of the posted
six scores by almost 50%. However, they will not change the relative
file sizes.
I conclude from these numbers that PDF files where music items are
represented as glyphs use less space than those where they are images.
This is also borne out by the regular observation that a PDF file
produced directly from an electronic document is considerably smaller
than if that document is printed and then scanned into PDF format.
Steve Latham
<m.o...@orphee.com> wrote in message
news:1122232217....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >Use of the 8 underneath is redundant, regardless of what anyone else
>>thinks. It's guitar music. We know where it plays and where it sounds.
>>If you use it, make it less intrusive.
>
> That's exactly right, Richard. I never use it for solo music. On the
> other hand, in chamber music pieces and in vocal music with guitar
> accompaniment, It has to be used, so everybody understands where the
> music, even if they do not play the guitar.
It doesn't HAVE to be used. Do you do it for Double Bass too?
It is redundant. People should actually take the time to learn this just
like they would learn that a Clarinet is a transposing instrument. You're
probably not putting little 2s in your Clarinet and Trumpet clefs are you?
Now, I will agree that it's a nice reminder, and since it is easily accessed
in modern notation programs, it is becoming quite common, but if you're
going to do it for guitar, you should do it for any transposing instrument
(or at least the octave displaced transpositions). Guitar is pretty common
now - anyone who has the knowledge that a Double Bass sounds an octave lower
than written will most likely be aware that guitar does the same thing. If
not, it gives them an opportunity to learn something (that said, including
the 8 will at least get players to ask "hey is there something funky about
guitar that I should know?" - so from that perspective it is good - but
again, Bass, Tenor voice, etc. should also be included).
Just an "IMO" :-)
Steve
tollimees
http://allarpuu.active.ee/elegy.pdf
Not maybe the nicest, but clear for use.
There are Capo-signs, which are much cleaner than the "DC al Segno et
poi la Coda"-text, used. Text means "go to the beginning, play till
segno(?) and then go to the coda".
There is actually no need for segno at all. DC means "go to the
beginning" and there is no question what to do, when there is Coda-sign
somewhere in the middle of piece. It means "jump to the next Coda
sign".
There are many things connected to reading habits. There is clear rule,
that if there is sharpened D in the beginning of the measure, all
following Ds in all octaves will be sharp, too. But, if there are often
remainder-accidentals in parentheses used, It can not be as clear any
more. I'm personally against helping accidentals. They can turn things
ambivalent. The only place, where It's useful, is in very long
measures. If there are two Ds in measure and it seems, that they both
are sharp, but if there is remainder only in front of one of them, It
can rise unneeded questions. The keyword here is consistency. If one
wants to put remainders to score, they must be in front of absolutely
EVERY altered note.
Matanya Ophee
>
><m.o...@orphee.com> wrote in message
>news:1122232217....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >Use of the 8 underneath is redundant, regardless of what anyone else
>>>thinks. It's guitar music. We know where it plays and where it sounds.
>>>If you use it, make it less intrusive.
>>
>> That's exactly right, Richard. I never use it for solo music. On the
>> other hand, in chamber music pieces and in vocal music with guitar
>> accompaniment, It has to be used, so everybody understands where the
>> music, even if they do not play the guitar.
>
>It doesn't HAVE to be used. Do you do it for Double Bass too?
>
>It is redundant. People should actually take the time to learn this just
>like they would learn that a Clarinet is a transposing instrument. You're
>probably not putting little 2s in your Clarinet and Trumpet clefs are you?
I get your point, and probably would agree with it. Except that all
the pieces I did so far with transposing instruments, the score was in
C and the transposition was only in the extracted parts. Yes, it is a
redundancy, but does not cost any money to use, and some confused
souls, and in my experience a lot of string and wind players, not to
mention singers, simply do not know that a guitar sounds an octave
lower/
>
>Now, I will agree that it's a nice reminder, and since it is easily accessed
>in modern notation programs, it is becoming quite common, but if you're
>going to do it for guitar, you should do it for any transposing instrument
>(or at least the octave displaced transpositions).
My job as a publisher is not to educate the masses, but to make the
edition easily usable by a lot of people who do not play the guitar,
thus facilitating the access guitarists would have in playing with
others.
Richard F. Sayage
"Scott Daughtrey" <p...@chance.com> wrote in message
news:rrjae11188ld7d84e...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:42:35 -0700, John Rethorst <nob...@nowhere.net>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <nobody-471043....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>> John Rethorst <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>
>>> use of font characters vs.
>>> pictures, does matter - for speed of drawing and printing, as well as
>>> resolution
>>
>>A good example is the large-scale magnifications posted in the Overture
>>forum,
>>at http://geniesoft.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=987&highlight=
>>
>>The Finale was a scan of a printout. Otherwise, note how much clearer the
>>Music
>>Press, Overture and Score samples are than the Encore and Sibelius.
>
> HUNH??? So what? All this demonstartes if that the person who created the
> files for Encore (cough, cough) didn't properly embed the fonts. If they
> had
> done so, one could zoom to 6400% in Adobe Acrobat and there would be no
> pixelation.
>
> Anyone who doubts this can email me personally and I will send a
> *properly*
> created pdf file made from Encore.
>
> This kind of ignorant analysis - judging zoomed clarity in improperly
> created
> files - benefits no one.
>
> Scott
It's true. I embed the fonts the last year or so, and they look much
nicer. There is no pixilation of this score at 6400% magnification, when I
PDFed the file just this moment, embedded fonts and all.
Rich
JMF
"tollimees" <alla...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122308221....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I made Lilypond-version. It's 34 kB.
> http://allarpuu.active.ee/elegy.pdf
> Not maybe the nicest, but clear for use.
>
> There are Capo-signs, which are much cleaner than the "DC al Segno et
> poi la Coda"-text, used. Text means "go to the beginning, play till
> segno(?) and then go to the coda".
> There is actually no need for segno at all. DC means "go to the
> beginning" and there is no question what to do, when there is Coda-sign
> somewhere in the middle of piece. It means "jump to the next Coda
> sign".
By the way: shouldn't it be "e poi la Coda" instead of "et poi la Coda"?
John
David Webber
"Michael Bednarek" <ROT1...@zorqanerx.pbz> wrote in message
news:45q6e1p065k2maju9...@4ax.com...
> The output of my preferred notation program, MOZART,...
I got lost in this thread and nearly missed your post Michael :-)
> is available on my
> web site. It took me about 30 minutes to prepare. The size of the
> PDF
> file is only 32KB. (The PDF file of the six examples is so big
> (972KB)
> because their musical elements are all, except Overture's, stored
> as
> graphical elements rather than glyphs of a font.)
MOZART's font, as you say, is embedable in the PDF file. I could
prevent that, but see no reason in doing so.
> While MOZART's output is generally comparable to the six examples,
> it
> shows two major deficiencies:
Argument time:
> the height of 1st/2nd endings indicators
> can not be adjusted
In the words of the pantomime OH YES THEY CAN! :-)
Go to the barline at the start of the 1st time bar or at the end of
the 2nd (or later) time bar, and do Alt+Enter for properties.
There's a spin button there which will edit the depths of the
bracket. (As I know you're pretty expert with MOZART, I'll blame
myself for not making this more obvious in the help system: it's now
on my to-do list to make more prominent.)
> - they run through the high notes in the second
> repeat, and the 2nd ending indicator ends wrongly with a short
> vertical
> line.
> Secondly, it can only arpeggiate chords within a strand. As the
> arpeggios in this piece are applied to chords formed from the top
> and
> the middle strand, I had to cheat and duplicate notes in the other
> strand.
This is true. Also now on my to-do list. I'll have to think
about how to implement this one though.
> The imperfections for both these features, especially the lack of
> adjustability for 1st/2nd ending indicators, make MOZART probably
> unsuited for professional engraving.
MOZART, in its original 1994 incarnation, was never intended to be
anything like an engraving tool - more a musical typewriter.
However in the ensuing versions, it has definitely come of age. Its
emphasis is still on letting you get the music in quickly and
formatting just about everything automatically, but there are far
more manual overrides than there were, making it closer to being
usable as an engraving tool than it was.
> On the other hand, compared to the
> prices quoted here earlier for the six programs (US$290 - US$750),
> MOZART's price of US$120, combined with what I consider the best
> note
> entry and editing mechanism from a computer keyboard, make it
> still a
> worthy player in this field...
Thank you :-) And even better for the ability to raise the 1st/2nd
time bar bracket. <vbg>.
And thanks for taking the trouble to do this piece for comparison.
I can learn a lot by looking at the differences and hopefully erode
the others' value for money even further by acting on it :-)
Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
David Webber
"Nightingale" <sin...@yorku.ca> wrote in message
news:42dfc1fd$0$18643$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
>> The excerpt doesn't call for any slurs, cross-staff beaming, or
>> unusual notation (except that for some people, guitar music
>> itself may
>> seem unusual).
>
> Right - I played a bit of guitar as a teen, but read from
> tablature.
Advert: MOZART will allow you to edit the stave type from standard
to tab, and converts the music to tab. It doesn't get everything
right as a given note can be played on more than one string, but
it's a starting point for polishing it. Going the other way
tab->staff is more straightforward!
David Webber
"Richard F. Sayage" <rsay...@ZEROSPAMsavageclassical.com> wrote in
message news:KvNEe.4320$Qy1....@fe09.lga...
> Serviceable, but only for personal use, Michael. At least the
> way it looks at the moment.
I'm sorry you think so. But a few things may have misled you. Many
of your criticisms are of the way PDF works, and not of MOZART.
The PDF view on the screen is not always entirely representative of
MOZART's output. See foot of message for a technical explanation.
But the following less points are perhaps worth noting. I printed
Michael's PDF file on a Brother HL-5140 laser printer.
> Bar lines at the far right,
They align correctly in MOZART's output and in the PDF print-out.
> accidentals scrunched,
I'm not sure what you mean but they print as intended. [I'll look
and see if MOZART puts them closer to the notes than other software:
but no-one has hitherto suggested they are too close.]
> repeats on top of the music (I figure that can be fixed but then
> we find out no it cannot),
Could you let me know what you mean? (Here or privately)
> beams are disconnected and overextended, and use of text looks to
> be awkward.
Again this is a result of the font being embedded: the PDF print-out
is fine, as is MOZART's output.
> Use of the 8 underneath is redundant, regardless of what anyone
> else thinks. It's guitar music. We know where it plays and where
> it sounds. If you use it, make it less intrusive.
That was Michael's choice - MOZART's default is to omit it.
Personally I don't like it in any circumstances, but lots of
recorder players clamoured for it, and so I provided it. If you
switch it on, any instrument which transposes exactly at the octave
will be so marked. If you don't they won't.
> Most of the other issues you bring up are a question of the
> human interaction, not the software. Puzzle all you wish. The
> other packages are all far more capable and flexible.
Have you tried MOZART recently? I am not going to argue with
this - to do so authoritatively I would have to play with all the
others and life is too short. But MOZART is certainly capable
enough and flexible enough for many musicians.
> Mozart looks very capable to a point, but there seem to be issues
> that are software bound.
Most of the issues you mentin explicitly are PDF-bound.
<technical>
When MOZART draws the music it loads the font and blits the
characters. Drawing instructions for straight lines like beams, and
stems, are computed based on the size of the characters - like the
width of a bulb, to ensure that everything aligns correctly.
Storing the font and the graphic instructions in the PDF file,
appears to store the exact points between which to draw the line, as
well as the instructions to load the font and blit the symbols.
Thus in the PDF representation, small differences in font aspect as
loaded on different devices at different sizes means that the stored
end points of the lines are not absolutely aligned on the symbols.
the effect is magnifiesd at small resolutions (ie the screen).
Storing a graphic image in the PDF file does not have this
disadvantage. But in fact neither does printing the PDF file with
embedded fonts at a resolution closer to that for which the PDF file
was created.
</technical>
David Webber
"Michael Bednarek" <ROT1...@zorqanerx.pbz> wrote in message
> I conclude from these numbers that PDF files where music items are
> represented as glyphs use less space than those where they are
> images.
> This is also borne out by the regular observation that a PDF file
> produced directly from an electronic document is considerably
> smaller
> than if that document is printed and then scanned into PDF format.
But embedding the music font in the PDF foile does seem to create
most of the problems (on screen) which Richard slated MOZART for :-(
David Webber
"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:gkbEe.520$Ut5...@news.itd.umich.edu...
>...Legible, correct music
> notation is 6 or 8 orders of magnitude more complex in its
> underlying
> rules than beautifully typeset plain-Roman-letter text.,,,
This is true - which makes it an interesting challenge.
>.... products which started as simple-minded analogs of
> word-processors and grew...
It is more complicated than that. First there is no ideal
hardware device for entering music notation. A mouse is too
limiting (two or three buttons), a piano keyboard doesn't
distinguish between enharmonics (to give only one shortcoming), and
the QWERTY keyboard is designed for text (and isn't even optimal for
that).
So in shoe-horning the computer hardware into a device for entering
notation lots of compromises have to be made, before you even start
thinking about any details of the interface.
When you *do* get to details, the word processor model is an obvious
starting point. What you have to do is take those features which
do transfer to music and use them (for the convenience of users
trying to learn a new interface), adapt them for features where they
only apply approximately, and produce your own conventions for
other things.
And continual review is very useful. :-)