Add to notation program comparison?
Some time ago several of us engraved a one-page piece for solo classical guitar using six different notation programs: Encore, Finale, Music Press, Overture, Score and Sibelius, using each program's default settings. Interesting differences! Then LilyPond came along and Music Press went out of business, so the one replaced the other in a second edition. You can download that at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jfalbano/Six%20Music%20Notation%20Programs%2…
[This may not display correctly in your browser, but download the PDF and it will look fine.]
Would anyone like to do this one page in MuseScore? The new edition would include all seven programs, and you'd have the chance to show the quality MuseScore offers. Please let me know, at jrethorst [at] post [dot] com.
Thank you,
John R.
Comments
Would you have an original scan from the score to start from?
And if you talk about 'default settings' how far does that go? I see for example that you've only split off the Coda in Sibelius, not in the other examples. MuseScore allows by default both approaches.
In some examples the arrangement text is differently aligned and uses a different number of lines. Once again MuseScore supports all of that 'by default'.
Same goes for showing the instrument name or not, for the DC al signe texts, ...
In reply to Would you have an original by jeetee
Thanks for your interest!
The original is the engraving by the Score program; all others were taken from that. I don't know what the Score user had for a source.
Sorry that I just mentioned 'default settings' -- that doesn't need to go that far. With enough tweaking, any program's output can look similar to any others. The idea is just to show what a program can do as acceptable workflow. The Sibelius example, done by that program's lead developer, had some tweaking. But every engraver tried to make their output look good.
Best,
John
I wonder most about the rests. Looks like they have been manually positioned for readability. I suspect automatic placement would not generally do as well in any of those programs except LilyPond and perhaps Score. Definitely would not in MuseScore. So if that sort of thing considered fair game?
In reply to I wonder most about the by Marc Sabatella
Thanks for your interest!
Most rests probably were manually positioned. When I mentioned default settings, I only meant what's acceptable workflow, nothing more exact. Manual positioning of anything for clarity or legibility is definitely fair game.
Best,
John
In reply to I wonder most about the by Marc Sabatella
OK, that sounds fair enough. I did a number of similar comaprisons when we were working on improving the layout algorithms during the development of 2.0, and part of that really was seeing the results with *no* tweaking, part of it seeing how easy the tweaks were. My sense is we'll do pretty well here with a minimum amount of manual tweaks.
It might make sense for someone more experienced in guitar notation to take this on. But if no one else volunteers, I'll give it a shot...
I made a version, engraved by me and reviewed by jeetee. As expected the rests needed some tweaking but it's easy enough to select all the voice 2 ones and move them all with the inspector and then adjust. I will send it to jrethorst.
https://musescore.com/nicolas/scores/1638181/s/ef6b89
In reply to I made a version, engraved by by [DELETED] 5
For the record: for the pdf aspect, this does changes nothing (although opinions may be different or ambiguous, according to sources, on the fact that alterations placed before a note remain valid for all notes of the same name - and different height - to the same measure)
But for playback, it's more disturbing, because I strongly suspect that the D (measure 3 voice 2) is sharp, identically of the D same measure voice 4, at the lower octave.
See these selections:
Without the D #: Elegy A.mscz
With: Elegy B.mscz
EDIT: or more simply, it is a location error (a "typo") between the F# voice 2 (which is at the keysig) same measure, and this D #: Elegy C.mscz (the source would have been useful)
In reply to For the record: for the pdf by cadiz1
I see that the sibelius and lilypond copies have the D#. I will add it.
Any opinion about keeping the # for the F? Sibelius has it, Lilypond doesn't.
In reply to I see that the sibelius and by [DELETED] 5
If it's helpful, I'll gladly turn out an updated score from a more recent version of LilyPond, but I'm wondering if there is an "authority" score, based on these kinds of comments. If there is one, that would be good to show at the beginning, I think.
Also, John, I think it would be a good idea to show each program's version that is/was used to create these scores. That alone can dispell misinterpretations as to each program's capabilities. I always enjoy comparisons like these, but I think it's not doing anyone a favor without knowing each program's version and with what criteria they are being compared since each of them are constantly improving. Just something to consider going forward.
In reply to If it's helpful, I'll gladly by tisimst
From this comment above :
In reply to From this comment above: The by jeetee
IMO
One would expect a b-flat in the first voice of the second bar.
Flatted 6th ('minor in major') in the key of D
From diminished VII [c-sharp - e- (g) - b-flat] going to the D chord.
EDIT: Diminished VII considered as (VII) -> enharmonically F#7 -> B9 or D#07
In reply to IMO One would expect a b-flat by MichLeon
I don't agree - the harmony implied means the first chord in the bar is an arpeggio 6/4.
There is no diminished harmony until bar 3.
This would also fit in with guitarists' hatred of flats!
In reply to If it's helpful, I'll gladly by tisimst
> I'm wondering if there is an "authority" score
That's the version done with the program named Score (2nd from last), which was done by the music publisher Matanya Ophee. I don't know what his source was.
In reply to I see that the sibelius and by [DELETED] 5
"Any opinion about keeping the # for the F? Sibelius has it, Lilypond doesn't."
Considering the key signature (E minor, with the F #), and the fact that there is no F natural in the previous measure, and since the beginning (so, no cautionary accidental necesarry), there is no objective reason to add a # to the F in the third measure.
In reply to "Any opinion about keeping by cadiz1
# removed
In reply to I made a version, engraved by by [DELETED] 5
Nicolas, this is a beautiful score. Thanks!
John
In reply to Nicolas, this is a beautiful by jrethorst
Agree!
Last thing: the arrangment for 6-string guitar is by: Matanya Ophee (not Orphee)
But correct for Editions Orphée.
In reply to Agree! Last thing: the by cadiz1
Thank you. Fixed.
> I think it would be a good idea to show each program's version that is/was used to create these scores. That alone can dispell misinterpretations as to each program's capabilities. I always enjoy comparisons like these, but I think it's not doing anyone a favor without knowing each program's version and with what criteria they are being compared since each of them are constantly improving.
That's a very good idea. I'm sorry I didn't think of it at the beginning. I will try to contact the contributors and see if they remember what versions they used.
Thank you,
John
In reply to > I think it would be a good by jrethorst
Can't we have the program, version, transcriber etc. in the footer? Like "Transcribed by Nicolas Froment using MuseScore 2.0.2"
In reply to Can't we have the program, by Jojo-Schmitz
I will do what I can. I'm not sure I can find all the contributors (and have been unexpectedly busy for the last two months). Nicolas did a fine score, though, and I'm looking forward to adding it.
John
Here's the updated version for LilyPond 2.19.36. I already sent this to John, but here's a sneak peak before it is included in the next edition of John's comparison doc: Elegy-LilyPond-2.19.36.pdf
Unfortunately, I had to manually adjust many of the rests' positions as well, but beyond that there were only 5 extra tweaks that I thought should be applied to the score, and not that it was bad without them, just that much better. Everything else is the default settings/appearance.
One thing that John and I felt was important to remember with this compendium is that it is not really a comparison of which program is right and which is wrong, but rather it is a gallery showcasing the different artistic styles that each program comes with. Naturally, each program can be tweaked to look more or less like another and all can be made to be notationally "identical", but looking at the document that way, at least for me, gives me a greater appreciation for the art form that music engraving is.
In reply to Here's the updated version by tisimst
I made a couple of other small edits today and uploaded them to the same link above.