Notation software revisited

[Dave2002]

For several years now I've been using MuseScore to notate and write music. See https://musescore.org/en

It is great for getting started, and a big plus is that it is free to download and to use. It can also handle large scores - it does have a lot going for it.

However, there are limitations, and I'm now seriously wondering whether to bite the bullets and switch to other systems such as Sibelius or Dorico.

There are planned improvements to MS - taking it to version 4, but I doubt whether some of the more significant failings will be fixed for some while - a time measured in years not weeks.

Things I find particularly painful in MS include:

1. No album feature. This was available in MS v2 - and it is possible to revert back to that if really "essential". Most people won't want to do that, though I can see that on occasion that might actually be the best option. An album feature allows one to create several pieces, and assemble them all into a group - for example a suite of pieces, or a set of variations.

There are kludge ways round this in MS v3 (and presumably v4) - such as concatenating XML files, but that's hardly a good way to go about things. Useful to know maybe, but hazardous for many who aren't technically very proficient with under the hood software systems.

2. No persistent history feature. There is a history feature which works within a session using MS, but navigation through that is haphazard, and it hasn't been developed to any really sophisticated extent. Unfortunately it is not persistent, and the history disappears when scores are saved. It is possible to have persistent history in software as some photo editing and designer packages have already shown.

3. Poor lock features. It is not possible to lock sections of a score to prevent accidental changes. At times it might be useful to make changes to a small part of a larger score, but be sure that nothing outside the selected range will be amended. Again this is similar to a select feature in a photo editing package.

4. There is no file include feature which works. It would be very useful to be able to insert other score files into a larger one. I know this may present problems, but it shouldn't be completely insuperable. This would allow a larger work to be built up from smaller parts. It could be as "simple" as Symphony = Movement 1 + Movement 2 + Movement 3 + Movement 4 [where those are either separated pieces of music, or continuously flowing] but could also be more detailed - such as Movement = Intro + Theme 1 + Contrasting Theme 2 + Development Theme 1 + Themes1+2 combined ...... + Coda. This would enable work on parts of a larger work to be carried out without spoiling the whole structure.

An alternative approach is sometimes suggested - simply work on the whole thing - and have multiple copies - but this raises the issues already mentioned in points 2 and 3.
It can be a recipe for disaster.

So - having pointed out some of the problems, what I now want to know is whether Sibelius, Dorico, or any other notation packages will reduce these issues to something manageable - even at a cost.

MS is really good for getting started and writing small pieces, and some of its features such as transposing and parts generation from master scores are really helpful, but I am unconvinced that it is currently good enough for anything really large - not without a lot of frustration anyway.

Comments from other users of notation sofware would be of great interest.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Having used the original Sibelius 7 software on an Acorn computer since 1995, I would happily go on using it for the rest of my life. It’s fast, intuitive, and does just about (but not quite) everything you throw at it. The only niggling problem is that although I have a backup Acorn, I’m aware that nothing lasts for ever and I could one day lose the computer and the software. The files wouldn’t be much use either.
I tried the PC version of Sibelius (5) and found it infuriating, so went back to the trusty Acorn. I’m seriously considering investing in Dorico, but I’d be interested in hearing the experience of there with this newer software.

[RichardB]

Any notation software is going to involve frustrations, workarounds, unaccountably missing features and so on. Best is to choose one, stick to it and learn to use it really well. I use Sibelius as everyone here knows, I'm not claiming it's the best but I would rather spend my time writing music than learning new software. When it comes to linking scores together, I do that after having converted them to PDF.

[Dave2002]

Any notation software is going to involve frustrations, workarounds, unaccountably missing features and so on. Best is to choose one, stick to it and learn to use it really well. I use Sibelius as everyone here knows, I'm not claiming it's the best but I would rather spend my time writing music than learning new software. When it comes to linking scores together, I do that after having converted them to PDF.

Some software is more frustrating. At the basic level MuseScore is similar to Sibelius for creating short scores. I agree that it is better to spend time writing music than learning new software or indeed fighting with old software, but sometimes the effort of trying to get things to work seems so great that there has to be a better way. It would not be worth my time trying out Dorico or Sibelius or any other system if most of the problems encountered in MuseScore as mentioned in the first post simply reappeared in the "new" software in slightly different forms, but my hope is that some of these other tools might be significantly better.

[Dave2002]

Dorico Trial

Checking this out - currently Dorico SE is around £85 - which is affordable.

I thought I would try the Trial. It has taken around 40 minutes so far - of which about 20 minutes was the download and installation.

Having MuseScore does still turn out to be useful as I can use files I already have to test. I expect that user trying this from Sibelius or Finale will also be able to use exported files to speed up their learning and testing.

I exported a few scores to MusicXML and tried to load them in Dorico. The first one I tried wouldn't load, and gave errors. Not sure if I can fix that - not in the short term anyway.

Then I tried a much shorter score, which imported OK into Dorico. That used a piano as the basic instrument.
Currently I have tried a slightly longer one, with a few - really unusual - instruments.

It seems to work - though the sounds aren't as good as in the original MuseScore version.

Playback seems to have an interface more like a DAW than in MuseScore. It is possible to solo and mute instruments in the mixer, though I've not found out how to pan instruments left-right yet. I'm assuming it's possible.
In MuseScore playback shows each bar of the score as it is played - which is helpful. Maybe there is a similar feature in Dorico, but in the time I've spent, I've not discovered that.

The things I really want to be able to do are to copy, paste and edit sections of music in a logical and consistent way - without getting in a mess. I think the Flows in Dorico might enable me to do this.
It is possible that I might do that and then Export the results back to MuseScore. I don't see it as essential to only work within one tool, but since I have found MS really difficult for working with quite large segments, this may be something which will work more satisfactorily.

It'll take me some while to get used to the Engraving mode - which is clearly different. I'm hoping it won't take forever to learn.

So for a quick trial this looks hopeful - less than an hour spent so far, including writing this note.

[Dave2002]

This video is quite helpful to get a quick start in Dorico - https://youtu.be/fhTwURkTBpc

I do have some very specific things I'd like to do, and I don't necessarily want to convert to Dorico completely.

Progress is being made, however.

[Dave2002]

Any notation software is going to involve frustrations, workarounds, unaccountably missing features and so on. Best is to choose one, stick to it and learn to use it really well. I use Sibelius as everyone here knows, I'm not claiming it's the best but I would rather spend my time writing music than learning new software. When it comes to linking scores together, I do that after having converted them to PDF.

Follow up. Sadly your comment turned out to be relevant.

I did try the free trial of Dorico, but it didn't solve the original problem I had with albums and joining pieces together. I asked for assistance - which was forthcoming - but it turned out that the "fix" was another kind of hidden kludge, so not really any better than the tool I was originally using. Maybe Sibelius would be better, but as you suggest, unless one wants to spend a lot of time checking out software, that isn't something that I personally will try again - not for a while anyway.

Regarding MuseScore - one not very satisfactory "solution" is actually to abandon the current version, and revert back to MS version 2 - which I think does actually do some of the operations I was hoping for. I did a test to see if that would work, and it did. It was intended that version 3 would also have those features, but apparently there were technical difficulties in carrying the album features over into version 3, so they were dropped. It's still a "hope" for version 4 - but won't be an immediately available feature.

The approach of using version 2 instead of the latest versions is deprecated, but depending on the scores may be a viable way of getting things done. Other approaches are to delve into XML and merge embedded files (since MS files are a container for XML) - but most people would find that difficult. I believe it sometimes works if one is prepared to write a suitable script - but only code enthusiasts would really want to do that.

For printed scores as mentioned one solution is to merge generated PDF files. That can be rather (very) wasteful for individual instrument parts in a large score, however, and generate a lot of blank space which has to be removed.

[RichardB]

one solution is to merge generated PDF files. That can be rather (very) wasteful for individual instrument parts in a large score, however, and generate a lot of blank space which has to be removed.

What do you mean?

[Dave2002]

What do you mean?

It may depend on the notation software used. If you write a score with a large number of instrumental parts, then some instruments may not play very much. If there are sections in which they don't play, then either blank bars or Tacet markings need to be put in the parts for those sections. Some notation software may generate great swathes of blank space, for parts which are sparse in notes, and it really should be removed or compressed.

This is generally much less of a problem for the full score. Maybe the software you use for scores and parts (Sibelius I believe) does not have this problem.

[RichardB]

I don't generally make parts using Sibelius's built-in method, but by making a copy of the score and then removing all the parts except the relevant one(s). In this way the spacing and general design of the score are reproduced in the parts. On the occasions when I do extract parts the built-in way, which I do only for orchestral music, there will be pages with little but rest bars but this is necessary since typically the time signature in every bar will be different. Of course, the way I use the software is tailored to the kind of music I'm writing, whose notation is unorthodox in various ways, so my solutions probably aren't applicable to very many others!

[Dave2002]

I don't generally make parts using Sibelius's built-in method, but by making a copy of the score and then removing all the parts except the relevant one(s). In this way the spacing and general design of the score are reproduced in the parts. On the occasions when I do extract parts the built-in way, which I do only for orchestral music, there will be pages with little but rest bars but this is necessary since typically the time signature in every bar will be different. Of course, the way I use the software is tailored to the kind of music I'm writing, whose notation is unorthodox in various ways, so my solutions probably aren't applicable to very many others!

Indeed.

There are people for whom extracting parts is a concern - even for amateur orchestras or bands. Most of us probably leave that to other people. Didn't orchestras use to have librarians to do this kind of thing - or managers who would hire in the parts from publishing houses? Nowadays with online scores there may have been a shift in work back to the performers. That's particularly true for amateur orchestras, but perhaps professionals are also affected. Amateur orchestras most probably will baulk at paying for hiring parts, so use PD parts if they can, and shift the printing back to the players. Just like many people now have to write their own documents - as "we all have word processors, and can type" - can't we? !!!

[Dave2002]

I am still wondering whether Sibelius solves one problem - which currently neither MuseScore nor Dorico do well. Is it possible to take a whole section - store it in a file, then import it as a new section directly into another score? I know it may be technically difficult to do, but then so is producing notation software in the first place.

I guess that many people don't want or need that feature, as they may only be producing short pieces, so Dorico or MuseScore would be good enough for them.

Oddly MuseScore 2 has the album feature, which works OK, but has not been carried over to MS3. Meanwhile suggestions that it might make sense to use MS2 to do some work are deprecated - though I have noted it works.

[RichardB]

I am still wondering whether Sibelius solves one problem - which currently neither MuseScore nor Dorico do well. Is it possible to take a whole section - store it in a file, then import it as a new section directly into another score?

Yes it is, although you have to make sure that both scores have the same instrumentation (if they don't, you need to add the missing instruments to one or both and then hide them again). If you want to insert the new section in the middle, I think you would need first to split the recipient score into two so that you have three chunks to chain together.

[Dave2002]

Yes it is, although you have to make sure that both scores have the same instrumentation (if they don't, you need to add the missing instruments to one or both and then hide them again). If you want to insert the new section in the middle, I think you would need first to split the recipient score into two so that you have three chunks to chain together.

Thanks - that's very helpful to know. So it seems to me that Sibelius still rules the roost, even though it may have some other problems. Cost and subscription models are still deterrents however.