14 Jul
2004
14 Jul
'04
7:24 p.m.
Greetings:
As promised, here's a set of test criteria used by Alan Belkin in his
1994 review of notation programs for the Macintosh. I hope that the
authors of Linux music notation software will consider this list against
the features of their own efforts.
I'm not interested in comparing "ours against theirs". The Mac
programs tested were all WYSIWYG notation editors, including Finale,
Composer's Mosaic, Encore, Lime, and Nightingale, while some of the best
Linux music notation software is devoid of any GUI. Nevertheless, the
criteria seem adequate as base requirements for any music notation
software, and I'm very interested in the opinions and evaluations of the
Linux developers of such software. I know that the authors of NoteEdit,
LilyPond, MusE/Musescore, Denemo, Rosegarden, Common Music Notation, and
perhaps other significant notation editors are represented on the
LAD/LAU lists, and I hope they will respond on-list to the criteria
presented here. I also welcome comments from users regarding the
presence or absence of the listed features in their favorite Linux
notation program.
I have only slightly altered Mr Belkin's original criteria where it
was Mac-specific. The evaluations in his original article were either
qualitative (good, bad, ugly, etc), quantitative, (1, 4, 12, etc), or
affirmative/negative (yes/no). So, here we go:
Note entry:
mouse & keyboard
MIDI step-time
MIDI realtime w. flexible quantization
audition other saves while recording
retain performance data for playback
number of independent rhythmic layers per staff
maximum number of staves per system
Entry of slurs, articulations, dynamics, etc.:
intelligent default placement
apply to multiple staves at once
Selection in regional edits:
vertical, horizontal slices within and across measures, staves,
system, pages, etc.
non-contiguous
conditional selection
Editing:
click & drag positioning of symbols
transposition (note, staff, selection, etc)
enharmonic change by region
rhythm: change note values (ease of use)
rhythm: auto-rebar
cut/copy/paste: music
cut/copy/paste: non-musical items, formats, etc.
mirroring (intelligent copies)
Special/custom notation:
unusual staves
simultaneous key signatures
unconventional time signatures
additive time signatures
simultaneous different time signatures
drawing tool
user-created symbols
user-selectable fonts for all elements
chord notation: graphic, playback, learn via MIDI
fretboard notation
figured-bass notation
unusual note heads (slashes, harmonics, etc)
easily adjustable cross-staff beaming
Lyrics:
mass create
create on page
import from text editor
auto layout
multiple fonts
flexible placement
MIDI playback:
ALSA or OSS support
channel support
playback includes modifiers (crescendi, dynamics, etc)
direct editing of MIDI data
import patch lists (GM, GS, etc)
scrolling playback
edit during playback
Entry layout:
flexible engraver spacing within measure
account for dynamics, slurs, annotative text, etc.
Page layout:
auto layout with engraver spacing
reduce or enlarge symbols, staves, text, systems, by any percent,
locally or globally
full control of measures per system
full control of systems per page
remove empty staves within systems
flexible spacing of staves within systems
Part extraction:
automatic with new layout
dynamic links to master score
File operations:
follow Linux standards (?)
simultaneous multiple files open
printed output: PS, PDF, DVI, etc.
Interface/overall ease of use:
undo/redo any operation
user-defined key bindings
user control over notational defaults
views: scroll, page, template, any percent, multiple simultaeous views
priorities clear
logical organization
simple language and icons
overall speed
on-line help
documentation
ease of learning
general solidity and stability
In his article Mr Belkin also addressed the problem of tuplets, noting
that at that time only Finale realized anything other than triplets when
converting from MIDI input (file or realtime). I should also note that
this list is hardly meant to be a complete set of expected features:
after all, it's from an article published ten years ago. I'm sure we've
advanced well beyond the state of the art in 1994... right ? :)
Best regards,
Dave Phillips
14 Jul
14 Jul
8:08 p.m.
Greetings:
As promised, here's a set of test criteria used by Alan Belkin in
his 1994 review of
Special/custom notation:
unusual staves
simultaneous key signatures
unconventional time signatures
as was pointed out recently (in re: MIDI) on the SuperCollider list,
commercial software development responds to its customer base's
desires (to a certain extent) and the less desirable elements rarely
make it into the releases.
one thing that i've always had to fudge in notation programs is
"free" time. imagine morton feldman trying to use finale (or
whatever) - headless notes put in places relative to one another
rather than a grid. in most programs i have used (digital
composer/mosaic, finale, sibelius) stem lengths can be shortened to
zero, but placement has to be fooled by adding invisible rests. what
a pain.
most scores i have made in the past few years have started in a
notation program and moved the files into a graphics program fairly
quickly. the ability to save a notation file as a graphic file is a
must, unless the notation program has major graphic editign
capabiulities.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Segel -- MAGNETIC -- PO Box 460816 S.F. CA. 94146-0816
jsegel(a)magneticmotorworks.com <-----> magsatellite(a)yahoo.com
http://www.MagneticMotorworks.com
15 Jul
15 Jul
4:41 p.m.
On Wednesday 14 Jul 2004 11:00 pm, Dave Phillips wrote:
As promised, here's a set of test criteria used
by Alan Belkin in
his 1994 review of notation programs for the Macintosh. I hope
that the authors of Linux music notation software will consider
this list against the features of their own efforts.
I presume that part of the motivation for this is the observation that
notation software in 1994 was pretty advanced already, and the field
doesn't seem to have advanced much (if at all) since. I think that
would be a fair comment, anyway. 1994 was when I started working on
Rosegarden 2.1, and I remember being hugely impressed at the time by
the capabilities of even relatively modest software like Encore. I
don't think Rosegarden today does as much as Encore did then. The
main advance is that free software now has access to a better
notation font, thanks to the excellent work of the Lilypond project.
Of course it's also true that notation software on Windows and Mac now
(Sibelius, Finale etc) does very little that the same or equivalent
software didn't do ten years ago. Most of the improvements since
then have been in details of user interface polish, fine-tuning the
output, and things like native synthesis for playback.
Anyway, I'll happily respond to the list by filling in the things you
can and can't do in Rosegarden at the moment. In our defence, before
I start I do want to point out that Rosegarden is not primarily a
score typesetter at all.
Note entry:
[x] mouse & keyboard
[x] MIDI step-time
[x] MIDI realtime w. flexible quantization
audition other saves while recording
I'm not sure I understand what that one means.
[x] retain performance data for playback
I wonder whether he meant velocity and instrument data only, or
pre-quantization timings as well? Rosegarden does all of these.
[ ] number of independent rhythmic layers per staff
Not supported at all -- a big omission.
maximum number of staves per system
No built-in limit.
Entry of slurs, articulations, dynamics, etc.:
[x] intelligent default placement
[ ] apply to multiple staves at once
Selection in regional edits:
[x] vertical, horizontal slices within and across measures, staves,
system, pages, etc.
Well, partly -- you can select individual notes, rectangles,
incremental selections of rectangles etc, but you can only select
from a single staff at once.
[x] non-contiguous
conditional selection
What do you think that means?
[x] click & drag positioning of symbols
[x] transposition (note, staff, selection, etc)
[x] enharmonic change by region
[ ] rhythm: change note values (ease of use)
Not currently easy to do en masse.
[x] rhythm: auto-rebar
[x] cut/copy/paste: music
cut/copy/paste: non-musical items, formats, etc.
Partly -- things like text are generally cut and pasteable, and of
course there is also cut and paste at the segment editor level
(something which doesn't necessarily exist in a pure notation
editor).
mirroring (intelligent copies)
Again, things of this nature generally happen at the segment level.
For example, there are repeating segments that permit you to turn
individual repeats into real copies after the fact, and segments that
are triggered by individual events (for ornaments, pattern sequencing
etc).
Special/custom notation:
[ ] unusual staves
[?] simultaneous key signatures
Not quite sure what's intended here either.
[x] unconventional time signatures
[ ] additive time signatures
[ ] simultaneous different time signatures
[ ] drawing tool
[x] user-created symbols
To a limited extent. Note heads etc are configurable to different
font glyphs or pixmaps through various XML configuration files.
user-selectable fonts for all elements
Rosegarden can use lots of different notation fonts, but it's actually
not possible to choose your text fonts at all (a silly omission).
[ ] chord notation: graphic, playback, learn via MIDI
[ ] fretboard notation
[ ] figured-bass notation
None of these is supported at all.
[x] unusual note heads (slashes, harmonics, etc)
As above, may take some configuration.
[ ] easily adjustable cross-staff beaming
Cross-staff beaming is not supported at all.
Lyrics:
[x] mass create
[ ] create on page
Individual lyric elements can be added and removed by hand, but it's
laborious -- you can't just click and type.
[x] import from text editor
Well, you can cut and paste!
[x] auto layout
[ ] multiple fonts
[ ] flexible placement
MIDI playback:
[x] ALSA or OSS support
ALSA and JACK.
[x] channel support
[x] playback includes modifiers (crescendi, dynamics, etc)
You do have to tell Rosegarden to use them though -- it won't do it by
default because it would be bad form for a sequencer to override
velocities etc you might have already entered via MIDI.
[x] direct editing of MIDI data
[x] import patch lists (GM, GS, etc)
[x] scrolling playback
[x] edit during playback
Entry layout:
[x] flexible engraver spacing within measure
To a very limited degree.
[x] account for dynamics, slurs, annotative text,
etc.
Page layout:
[x] auto layout with engraver spacing
[ ] reduce or enlarge symbols, staves, text, systems, by any
percent, locally or globally
[ ] full control of measures per system
[ ] full control of systems per page
[ ] remove empty staves within systems
[ ] flexible spacing of staves within systems
All automatic only.
Part extraction:
[ ] automatic with new layout
[ ] dynamic links to master score
File operations:
[x] follow Linux standards (?)
(?) indeed.
[ ] simultaneous multiple files open
[x] printed output: PS, PDF, DVI, etc.
Interface/overall ease of use:
[x] undo/redo any operation
[x] user-defined key bindings
[x] user control over notational defaults
Some of them, anyway.
[x] views: scroll, page, template, any percent,
multiple
simultaeous views
Linear, continuous page, multi-page, any size and multiple
simultaneous views anyway.
The rest are all rather too relative for me to comment on.
priorities clear
logical organization
simple language and icons
overall speed
on-line help
documentation
ease of learning
general solidity and stability
Chris
10:58 p.m.
Hi Chris:
Thank you very much for your response. Some further considerations
follow...
Chris Cannam wrote:
Sorry, it should have read "staves". Ergo, you can listen to music
already entered on other staffs while recording a new one.
He doesn't specify, even in the article, but I suspect you have the
right interpretation.
Indeed. I assume it's on the RG Todo list ?
Excellent.
Still pretty neat. In his survey Belkin found that only Mosaic was
"unlimited" in that regard.
Well, I assume he refers to a command-oriented edit procedure, i.e., "If
the passage is in semiquavers and written between middle C and its
higher octave, then convert them to some new rhythmic value and
transpose them downwards by a perfect 5th". Does that sound right to you ?
What about cut/copy/paste elements such as dynamic signs, tempo
indicators, crescendi/decrescendi, etc. ?
Sounds good.
I believe he means simultaneous different keysigs. Is that do-able in RG ?
Ah, that's cool. Do you plan to support additive timesigs ? What about
the simultaneous different timesigs ?
Ouch. It's on the Todo list ?
Any plan to incorporate them ? Chord frames would be nice, along with
chord symbols. Figured bass would be nice, though I doubt many people
actually write it anymore.
Too bad. It's often the only solution to some notation problems.
Again, too bad. I'd like lyrics to be entered as easily as writing in a
text editor, but I do understand the difference of application here.
Sure can... :)
Nice though.
But of course exporting to LilyPond gives the user all that capability.
I thought you might like that... :)
Good.
Excellent. Can I edit notation regardless of view ?
I presume that part of the motivation for this is the observation that
notation software in 1994 was pretty advanced already, and the field
doesn't seem to have advanced much (if at all) since. I think that
would be a fair comment, anyway. 1994 was when I started working on
Rosegarden 2.1, and I remember being hugely impressed at the time by
the capabilities of even relatively modest software like Encore. I
don't think Rosegarden today does as much as Encore did then. The
main advance is that free software now has access to a better
notation font, thanks to the excellent work of the Lilypond project.
Yes, it seems that we have combinations of applications that in fact
provide quite complete notation capabilities. LilyPond supports an
impressive number of notation requirements, including figured bass and
lyrics, so I could see myself preparing a basic "input" score with
Rosegarden that I could export to LilyPond for refinement. This two-step
process is probably anathema to the Win/Mac folks, but as Professor
Belkin points out, the all-in-one aproach simply can't accomodate all
the possible situations that arise during the formatting of notation
destined for printed output.
Of course it's also true that notation software on
Windows and Mac now
(Sibelius, Finale etc) does very little that the same or equivalent
software didn't do ten years ago. Most of the improvements since
then have been in details of user interface polish, fine-tuning the
output, and things like native synthesis for playback.
Anyway, I'll happily respond to the list by filling in the things you
can and can't do in Rosegarden at the moment. In our defence, before
I start I do want to point out that Rosegarden is not primarily a
score typesetter at all.
Another point I've been thinking about. Belkin makes the distinction
between rule-based and graphic music notation applications, noting that
many apps include aspects of both approaches. However, it seems to me
that a rule-based system such as LilyPond provides ultimate flexibility
regarding the detail quality of output, but obviously the graphics-based
approach favors ease of input. Would you say that Rosegarden takes such
a combined approach ?
Note entry:
[x] mouse & keyboard
[x] MIDI step-time
[x] MIDI realtime w. flexible quantization
audition other saves while recording
I'm not sure I understand what that one means.
[x] retain
performance data for playback
I wonder whether he meant velocity and instrument data only, or
pre-quantization timings as well? Rosegarden does all of these.
[ ] number of
independent rhythmic layers per staff
Not supported at all -- a big omission.
maximum
number of staves per system
No built-in limit.
Entry of slurs,
articulations, dynamics, etc.:
[x] intelligent default placement
[ ] apply to multiple staves at once
Selection in regional edits:
[x] vertical, horizontal slices within and across measures, staves,
system, pages, etc.
Well, partly -- you can select individual notes, rectangles,
incremental selections of rectangles etc, but you can only select
from a single staff at once.
[x]
non-contiguous
conditional selection
What do you think that means?
[x] click &
drag positioning of symbols
[x] transposition (note, staff, selection, etc)
[x] enharmonic change by region
[ ] rhythm: change note values (ease of use)
Not currently easy to do en masse.
[x] rhythm:
auto-rebar
[x] cut/copy/paste: music
cut/copy/paste: non-musical items, formats, etc.
Partly -- things like text are generally cut and pasteable, and of
course there is also cut and paste at the segment editor level
(something which doesn't necessarily exist in a pure notation
editor).
mirroring
(intelligent copies)
Again, things of this nature generally happen at the segment level.
For example, there are repeating segments that permit you to turn
individual repeats into real copies after the fact, and segments that
are triggered by individual events (for ornaments, pattern sequencing
etc).
Special/custom
notation:
[ ] unusual staves
[?] simultaneous key signatures
Not quite sure what's intended here either.
[x]
unconventional time signatures
[ ] additive time signatures
[ ] simultaneous different time signatures
[ ] drawing tool
[x] user-created symbols
To a limited extent. Note heads etc are configurable to different
font glyphs or pixmaps through various XML configuration files.
user-selectable fonts for all elements
Rosegarden can use lots of different notation fonts, but it's actually
not possible to choose your text fonts at all (a silly omission).
[ ] chord
notation: graphic, playback, learn via MIDI
[ ] fretboard notation
[ ] figured-bass notation
None of these is supported at all.
[x] unusual
note heads (slashes, harmonics, etc)
As above, may take some configuration.
[ ] easily
adjustable cross-staff beaming
Cross-staff beaming is not supported at all.
Lyrics:
[x] mass create
[ ] create on page
Individual lyric elements can be added and removed by hand, but it's
laborious -- you can't just click and type.
[x] import from
text editor
Well, you can cut and paste!
[x] auto
layout
[ ] multiple fonts
[ ] flexible placement
MIDI playback:
[x] ALSA or OSS support
ALSA and JACK.
[x] channel
support
[x] playback includes modifiers (crescendi, dynamics, etc)
You do have to tell Rosegarden to use them though -- it won't do it by
default because it would be bad form for a sequencer to override
velocities etc you might have already entered via MIDI.
[x] direct
editing of MIDI data
[x] import patch lists (GM, GS, etc)
[x] scrolling playback
[x] edit during playback
Entry layout:
[x] flexible engraver spacing within measure
To a very limited degree.
[x] account for
dynamics, slurs, annotative text, etc.
Page layout:
[x] auto layout with engraver spacing
[ ] reduce or enlarge symbols, staves, text, systems, by any
percent, locally or globally
[ ] full control of measures per system
[ ] full control of systems per page
[ ] remove empty staves within systems
[ ] flexible spacing of staves within systems
All automatic only.
>Part extraction:
>[ ] automatic with new layout
>[ ] dynamic links to master score
>
>
I wondered whether part extraction was supported. It is of course
invaluable when producing larger-scale scores for ensembles. Any plans
for it in RG ?
File
operations:
[x] follow Linux standards (?)
(?) indeed.
[ ]
simultaneous multiple files open
[x] printed output: PS, PDF, DVI, etc.
Interface/overall ease of use:
[x] undo/redo any operation
[x] user-defined key bindings
[x] user control over notational defaults
Some of them, anyway.
[x] views:
scroll, page, template, any percent, multiple
simultaeous views
Linear, continuous page, multi-page, any size and multiple
simultaneous views anyway.
The rest are all rather too relative for me to comment
on.
> priorities clear
> logical organization
> simple language and icons
> overall speed
> on-line help
> documentation
> ease of learning
> general solidity and stability
>
>
Yes, these are all rather qualititative, though the documentation could
be addressed. So far it seems that RG's docs are pretty good, but I
haven't gone into them deeply yet.
Chris, thanks again for taking the time to respond. It really does give
me a better appreciation for the capabilities of RG as measured against
the "state of the art" for the Mac in 1994, and I agree that the
criteria probably hasn't gone out of date.
Best regards,
dp
7482
days inactive
7483
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Chris Cannam -
Dave Phillips -
Jonathan Segel