music-research@HPLPM.HPL.HP.COM (01/05/91)
Music-Research Digest Sat, 5 Jan 91 Volume 6 : Issue 2
Today's Topics:
FINALE
Looking for a music typesetting processor
Personal Composer 3.3
*** Send contributions to Music-Research@uk.ac.oxford.prg
*** Send administrative requests to Music-Research-Request
*** Overseas users should reverse UK addresses and give gateway if necessary
*** e.g. Music-Research@prg.oxford.ac.uk
*** or Music-Research%prg.oxford.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
*** Back issues, index, etc.: send "help" in a message to archive-server
*** @uk.ac.oxford.prg (in the UK) or @hplpm.hpl.hp.com (elsewhere)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 16 Dec 90 07:25:50 GMT
From: mgresham%artsnet%daysinns%chara%vax@edu.gatech (Mark Gresham)
Subject: FINALE
To: music-research@prg
Message-ID: <1079@artsnet.UUCP>
In article <13053@milton.u.washington.edu> ramsiri@blake.u.washington.edu (Enartloc Nhoj) writes:
>In article <1076@artsnet.UUCP> mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) writes:
>>In article <12925@milton.u.washington.edu> ramsiri@blake.u.washington.edu (Enartloc Nhoj) writes:
>>>I am VERY close to purchasing FINALE for the MAC. From what I gather,
>>>it is perhaps the best publishing program available on any platform.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>I'd disagree strongly with that.
>>I would place both A-R Editions Sun/Unix-based system at the top,
>>followed quickly by SCORE version 3.0.
>
>Please tell me more about A-R.. i think i may have called
>that company about a year ago.. i got the impression that
>while the final ouput of a score was truly engraving quality..
>the input of the musical information was strictly ascii...
>I am not personally interested in conceiving of music in a
>non musical way. After all.. i would like to use the progam
>for composition as well..
My talks with them indicated that ascii was one of several
methods, as is the case with SCORE. In addition, SCORE has
some standalone entry assists that can be purchased separately.
The newest one, ScoreInput, allows for real-time music entry from
a midi-device of your choice or, strangely enough, from the
computer keyboard (played as if a two-manual, chromatic keyboard).
>>>My next project will require the printing of over 600 pages of music.
>>
>>There's the start of your problems with FINALE.
>
> WHY? My 600+ pages will actually be a combination of score
> and text. I am hoping that importing encapsulated Poscript Scores
> to a DTP program won't be too much of a hassle.. not all
> scores will need cutting and pasting.. but i definitely will
> need the capablility importing music into a document. SInce
> ATARI's NOTATOR has a proprietary file format which doesn't
> allow anything greater than a screen dump (bit mapped) to a
> file, i am forced to get into a program such as FINALE..
> or perhaps SCORE.. as you intimate.
SCORE's 3.0 features will prove superior. You can proceed in
either way. You can deal with music-and-quantity-text issues in
several ways:
1) The new text-handling capabilities make it possible to import
ascii text files and manipulate the appearance in powerful ways as
well as input paragraphs directly.
So good that I've found it easier to do introductory and title
pages, etc., which DON'T include music directly in SCORE rather than
swapping to a text-publishing package.
2) You can import an existing encapsulated PostScript file into a
SCORE page. The reference manual cites their experiences with
logos from Micrografix Designer, Adobe Illustrator, and suggests,
"Since Score does not supprt kerning of text, you might use
Pagemaker or Ventura Publisher to kern special items and bring
them into SCORE."
3) You can produce encapsulated PostScript files from SCORE to be
input into any publishing package that will accept EPS files.
(Your ability to play with the bounding box in raw PostScript
might prove a useful talent.)
4) You can also import plain PostScript files into SCORE. They
need not be encapsulated PostScript! This includes simple
PostScript commands (like inserting a "grayscale" to make one or
more items gray instad of black) on up to sophisticated raw
PostScript programs.
>>You're going to have some bug appear with any of the best
>>programs. However, if you're unable to get adequate answers, that
>>should tell you something! A demo of FINALE I attended in St.
>>Paul, I noted that although the input of simpler music had a
>>graceful, user-appealing feel, any level of genuine complexity
>>both baffled the demonstrator (musically; the "can you do this"
>>questions primarily coming from myself anbd Alice Parker) and
>>required slow, extensive editing.
>
>I hope to be able to score contemporary music with whatever
> program i end up with.. i must have the power to design
> my own marking and symbols.. also need the flexibility in
> removal of bar lines etc...
Then SCORE is for you, as it allows you to:
1) make libraries of your own symbols with the DRAW program, which
can be called upon whenever you like.
2) make alterations of standard or user-drawn library symbols with
simple values changes to that item's parameters.
>>>Since purchasing FINALE will also mean purchasing a MAC and laser printer
>>>etc... (I will have to sell my Atari 4MB system with NOTATOR etc)...
>>
>>No! No! NO! There is a new version of FINALE for IBM-clone PC/AT!
>>I'm having someone review it right now.
>>Several things to know so far: If your processor time is premium,
>>you should know that FINALE uses a *lot* of time on screen graphics
>>instead of skeleton-drawn but well-placed screen symbols.
>>You need a very fast machine to keep from losing patience, most
>>recommended is a full-blown 386, not an SX. The SX is visibly
>>slower. You will also need WINDOWS 3.0. (We're about to try it
>>with WINDOWS 2.0).
>
>A Tech support person at Coda, "Kurby" ? , tells me that the
>FINALE version for the 386 is a bit ahead of the update for the
>Mac.. however, the mac will be updated shortly..
Since I last posted, yesterday in fact, I got CODA's postcard
announcement of the 2.0 version upgrade for the 386. Too bad they
sent us the previous version for review, instead of waiting to
sending us 2.0!
>He did, however, suggest that running FINALE on the MAC was
>a little more graceful than running it on MSDOS.
Well, the DOS version is a port from the MAC, not vice-versa. It
well should be more graceful.
>I am giving serious thought to a 386 or a 486 ... i don't
>care at for MSDOS.. but once i've got the program running..
>it won't matter too much..
I think everyone reading this would prefer a music package on
UNIX. The thing is, although the SCORE folks have thought about
it, I've heard their marketing department thinks there's not
enough of a market for a UNIX based version yet (imagine that :-)).
If enough people badger them, however, they might do it (and I
know of at least one programmer [not me, BTW] who would be
interested in contracting the porting project from them).
>>The results from SCORE are superior, in my book. FINALE has never
>>satisfied me either with their slurs or horizontal symbol spacing.
>
>Others have also told me that Score is definitely of publish
>quality and that FINALE is not quite. But i also understand
>that SCORE is ascii based.. I don't think i would like
>that.. though i must admit, i have never tried it..
>doesn't seem like an intuitive way to deal with music.
Aside from the fact that you can do non-ascii input with ESCORT
(MIDI sequencer translation program) or with ScoreInput (real-time
input, as I mentioned before), it doesn't seem all that
unintuititive to me. I personally input to SCORE in ascii, no
mouse (which you can use; a built-in, not add-on capability).
And I've been composing since I was 12 years old. I personally
think it beats ponderously dragging symbols across the screen,
plus you have lots of shortcuts available, including macros and
repetition procedures. And there are certain things that are MUCH
faster in ascii.
Your big time-management area is in editing anyway, especially
if you're doing lots of non-standard symbols and methods.
You can make items invisible, like barlines, but still have the
program acknowledge their existence.
>Music scoring by nature is a very graphic oriented proceedure,
>i think a program should be bent toward that emphasis.
But the question is "how" it is bent.
Are you wasting your memory and processor time drawing a screen
or are you using it to better manipulate the arraay?
I want (and need) a more professional, elegant, and ACCURATE
printout, not a prettier screen, if I have to make a choice.
For the kind of work I do, FINALE's final product does not yet
justify the screen-comfort factor.
(One of the nice features about A-R's Sun-based system is that you
get both excellent printout and WYSIWYG capabilities on that
wonderful large screen.)
I've done everything up through VERY large orchestral scores using
SCORE, and don't feel it's unintuitive, even with ascii input.
It is NOT simplistic. Like UNIX, it's for the informed user; but
the results are worth it.
>Actually, if i had my druthers, i'd be running a NeXTstation
>right now.. unfortunately, no GREAT music program exists for it
>yet..
Yell louder. We've all got to simply say, "This is what we'd like"
if we want companies like Passport to develop them.
>It's " YAMTM " Yet another music teaching method etc..
Even more reason to use SCORE. (See earlier reasons re text.)
>A student of mine printed out the score of his opera with
>SCORE.. looked fantastic... he's also done a few of my
>lesson handouts for me.. love the output.. again, never
>have used the program... don't know how much the program
>requires one to do non-musical things to get work done.
Sounds like your best bet is to forget buying a program and hire
the student to typeset the book! :-)
>I think the philosophy behind these programs should be
>to eliminate the non-musical processes.
As you pointed out yourself, a major chunk of the work is a
graphics-oriented process, not a merely musical one.
And although more musicians are getting more capability to typeset
their own music, what they DON'T necessarily have are the graphic
and editorial skills to use the most powerful typesetting tools to
greatest advantage.
>Environments
>should be easily customized.. someday, we may see some
>"learning" built in to the programs... wouldn't be
>too hard to do, actually... there are all sorts of ways
>a program can show the user how to be more efficient.. !
PROGRAM: You nincompoop! You want a Bb there, not an A natural.
And there -- give that line to the 1st flute; it'll sound better!
No, no, no! Faster, and detach these. Here, like this...
:-) :-) :-)
Cheers,
--Mark
========================================
Mark Gresham ARTSNET Norcross, GA, USA
E-mail: ...gatech!artsnet!mgresham
or: artsnet!mgresham@gatech.edu
========================================
------------------------------
Date: 17 Dec 90 18:51:03 GMT
From: mjs%hpfcso@com.hp.hpl.hplabs (Marc Sabatella)
Subject: Looking for a music typesetting processor
To: music-research@prg
Message-ID: <7180009@hpfcso.HP.COM>
>>1. "music: a troff preprocessor for printing music scores" --
>> send email to ef@cs.nott.ac.uk. That's the person who sends it.
>
>Has anybody done this successfully? It looked interesting,
>so I e-mailed to ef@cs.nott.ac.uk a few weeks ago, and
>I have yet to get a reply.
I eventually got a reply, and even sources. There is the generic pic version
and a version that requires the Sonata font. The former is what I wanted, but
I gave up on it after a week or two of hacking. The output quality wasn't the
problem (although it is not nearly as nice as the Sonata output), at least not
after I hacked up the font descriptors to center the noteheads better, etc. It
simply failed basic formatting tasks like lining up left hand and right hand
parts rhythmically. I have hard copy of the "manual" from the Sonata version,
and it appears to line things up properly.
If you have Sonata, and can get hold of the sources from Eric (keep trying),
it is an excellent package.
>>2. "MusicTeX : Using TeX to write polyphonic or instrumental music"
>> ftp from qed.rice.edu.
>
>This I did manage to get, and set up with the help of the local gurus.
>Unfortunately it only confirmed my guess that, while TeX is an excellent
>paradigm for a music notator, you don't want to actually build your
>notator on top of TeX as a set of macros. (That is, for practical use
>in printing music; for a master's thesis, which the original MuTeX was,
>it's a fine CS project.) Now if the visual quality of the output
>had been as high as we're used to with TeX, I might not
>mind having to learn how to translate a score into a convoluted
>sequence of arcane MusicTeX macros. But, after examining the
>printouts from a few of the demos, I don't believe it's worth
>the effort. Not only is the spacing amateurish (and the bizarre
>notion of shrinking the accidentals when the spacing gets too narrow
>doesn't help either), but the fonts themselves seem half-baked.
We have MuTeX running here and it doesn't suffer the font problems you mention.
I think our "local guru" here designed the fonts himself. If you take the time
to do that, it should be acceptable. I haven't seen enough output to know
anything about problems with spacing. It didn't do multiple staves, so I gave
up on it. I would look into MusicTex, but I've got Notator for the Atari ST
now, and I'm very happy with it.
For the person who asked about PC packages, there is Dr. T's Copyist,
Encore, Score, and a few I've seen advertised but know nothing about (Laser
Music Processor looks intersting - and relatively inexpensive). There was a
comparative review in Keyboard magazine last summer (July?) - although it is
somewhat dated, it should serve to get you started.
Marc
------------------------------
Date: 14 Dec 90 16:06:04 GMT
From: hawk%cbnewsl%att@edu.Berkeley.ucbvax (james.p.hawkins)
Subject: Personal Composer 3.3
To: music-research@prg
Message-ID: <1990Dec14.160604.8166@cbnewsl.att.com>
In article <EDFFBD00C55FE442E3@jetson.uh.edu>, COSC12MQ@JETSON.UH.EDU (Reza Hussein) writes:
>
> Does anyone out there knows anything about Personal Composer 3.3? I'm
> planning to get one but do not have enough informations about it. I'll be
> appreciated for your help.
Reza,
I have been using Personal Composer for about 1 year now. I have the 3.3
version now. I just purchased FINALE 1.1.1 for as much as I bought Personal
composer for. FINALE needs MS WINDOWS 3.0 to run, but I think it's worth the
extra bit of money. Leigh's in NY can give you an excellent price. I don't
have the slip with me so I don't remember exactly what I paid.
Anyway, Personal Composer has some serious problems.
1) Repeat marks don't work!
2) I scored a 200 measure piece (with the option set to 400 measures) and
part of the MUSIC DISAPPEARED with no warning because I ran short of memory
when I had another device driver loaded.
3) Personal COmp handles triplets and quintuplets, but no other tuples as does
FINALE.
4) Symbols for crecendo and dim. are just symbols, they don't do anything.
5) Grace notes are there only for looks and don't do anything.
6) Arpeggio: there is no symbol or function to my knowledge.
7) It DOES read standard midi files (not documented for some reason)
but it DOES *NOT* create them. I found a converter from a BBS.
8) As far as I know, you can't control note durations (staccatto and
legatto, etc.)
There are a number of other annoying problems with the program. It has a
built in sequencer and LISP interpreter which as far as I'm concerned
take up space and cost money that could have been spent for a better scoring
program. It's better to get a good dedicated sequencer if that's what you
want. Sequencer Plus is excellent. Do you want to pay for a LISP interpreter?
I've tried the Personal Composer Sequencer and found it difficult to use.
I have played with a demo of Music Printer Plus which is seems quite nice
as a scoring program in my opinion. However, AS far
as I know, Music Printer PLus is copy protected which makes it a problem
to back up. FINALE is not Copy Protected. It's worth paying for!
I am presently attending a MIDI MUSIC course at Brookdale Community College
in NJ. They use FINALE and SEQUENCER Plus for their scoring program
and sequencer. One disadvantage to FINALE is that it may be MORE than
you want. It's loaded with features.
MS Windows 3.0 can be purchased for $100.00. I bought my copy at B. Daltons
book store. So, in pricing FINALE add $100.00 you will need for MS Windows.
If you have any other questions, give me a call at home (609)596-1129.
I can also look up the price I paid for FINALE.
-
I suggest saving the extra bucks and get something other than Personal Composer
there are other good programs out there that I'm less familiar with.
I also suggest getting some other opinions of FINALE as I am relatively
inexperienced with it.
Jim Hawkins
------------------------------
End of Music-Research Digest