 |
|
 |
|
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:40:28 +0100, "David Webber" <...@musical-dot-demon-dot-co.uk> wrote:
"b-f" <...@cui.com> wrote in message
news...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> I'm wondering if anyone can give me some composition-software
> alternatives to Finale. I've downloaded the trial (full) versions of
> Songwriter and Allegro, and have been working with them for a couple
> weeks. In all honesty, the program is powerful and functional, but
> the interface seems really campy and OLD in certain areas (eg. tool/
> note selection, midi interface/recognition, menu layout). If Finale
> is the industry standard, I'm fine with buying it, but I'd like to
> check out any other options or recommendations first. Thanks all!
You might like to try MOZART - http://www.mozart.co.uk
There's a free evaluation copy.
Don't be put off by the low price - it does a lot more than you might think.
Dave
--
David Webber
Author of 'Mozart the Music Processor'
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 01:05:39 -0500, Joel <...@forit.com> wrote:
When I made my decision back in 2003 between Finale and Sibelius, I
chose Sibelius because of its relatively easier to use interface. I
spent over 23 years in the IT business evaluating hardware/software
for a VERY large oil company (which plays tag with Wal-mart in the
Fortune 5) before I became a composer. So ease of use and interface
was something I had been looking at for literally decades (and I also
taught user interface design for programmers). My assumption has
always been that the two products will have parity on functionality as
they are the market leaders.
I use Siblius soley to generate sheet music -- full scores and parts
for both my original work ranging from small ensemble up through large
big bands and full orchestra. It is mediocre at best for electronic
performance even with good samplers and orchestra samples. So when I
need to compose both ways -- live and electronic -- I will
simultaneously score both in Sibelius and a sequencer (I use Sonar
Producer 6).
By the way Sibelius 5 is a CPU hog (and a few other things I don't
like). If it wasn't for its 'panorama view' (which allows you to
compose in continuous strips versus actual page view), I would go back
to Sibelius 4. While it has a relatively good interface, I find
Sibelius 5's new approach to midi very confusing and spread into too
many places in the program.
By the way, my mentor is a classical operatic composer (for Houston
Grand Opera among others) and she uses Nightingale which I believe is
a MAC only product but she loves it.
To listen to some of my stuff check out:
http://www.myspace.com/joelirwin or
http://www.soundclick.com/joelirwin
Hope this helps,
Joel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:57:09 GMT, "Steve Latham" <...@verizon.net> wrote:
"b-f" <...@cui.com> wrote in message
news...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Hi there!
> I'm wondering if anyone can give me some composition-software
> alternatives to Finale. I've downloaded the trial (full) versions of
> Songwriter and Allegro, and have been working with them for a couple
> weeks. In all honesty, the program is powerful and functional, but
> the interface seems really campy and OLD in certain areas (eg. tool/
> note selection, midi interface/recognition, menu layout). If Finale
> is the industry standard, I'm fine with buying it, but I'd like to
> check out any other options or recommendations first. Thanks all!
> Bryan
Bryan,
Finale is NOTATION software, not composition software. If that's truly what
you seek, then Finale and Sibelius are industry standard. I see David
Webber's post above and he's likely mentioning his software, Mozart, which
is definitely worth considering.
While you can "compose" in notation software, I don't know if you wouldn't
fare better in something more sound-, rather than notation-oriented like a
sequencing program. Of course if you're used to working with notation and
desire printable scores, one of the notation programs are the way to go.
Most feature some sort of limited playback capability in the same way that
most sequencers feature some sort of limited notation capability. So it
depends on what you want.
I've got to say, Sibelius always seems to me to look like "My First Notation
Program from Fisher-Price" (no lead of course). It's a little "cartoon-y" -
but then again both Mac OS and Windows (haven't tried Vista yet) have gotten
a little "balloon-y" in their appearance of late (as has Explorer, Firefox,
and so on). I'd prefer an old black and white tool bar like Finale used to
have to be honest - I don't need the GUI to be pretty - only the printed
scores!
Best,
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:58:01 -0700, b-f <...@cui.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:57 pm, "Steve Latham" <...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "b-f" <...@cui.com> wrote in message
>
> news...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Hi there!
> > I'm wondering if anyone can give me some composition-software
> > alternatives to Finale. I've downloaded the trial (full) versions of
> > Songwriter and Allegro, and have been working with them for a couple
> > weeks. In all honesty, the program is powerful and functional, but
> > the interface seems really campy and OLD in certain areas (eg. tool/
> > note selection, midi interface/recognition, menu layout). If Finale
> > is the industry standard, I'm fine with buying it, but I'd like to
> > check out any other options or recommendations first. Thanks all!
> > Bryan
>
> Bryan,
>
> Finale is NOTATION software, not composition software. If that's truly what
> you seek, then Finale and Sibelius are industry standard. I see David
> Webber's post above and he's likely mentioning his software, Mozart, which
> is definitely worth considering.
>
> While you can "compose" in notation software, I don't know if you wouldn't
> fare better in something more sound-, rather than notation-oriented like a
> sequencing program. Of course if you're used to working with notation and
> desire printable scores, one of the notation programs are the way to go.
> Most feature some sort of limited playback capability in the same way that
> most sequencers feature some sort of limited notation capability. So it
> depends on what you want.
>
> I've got to say, Sibelius always seems to me to look like "My First Notation
> Program from Fisher-Price" (no lead of course). It's a little "cartoon-y" -
> but then again both Mac OS and Windows (haven't tried Vista yet) have gotten
> a little "balloon-y" in their appearance of late (as has Explorer, Firefox,
> and so on). I'd prefer an old black and white tool bar like Finale used to
> have to be honest - I don't need the GUI to be pretty - only the printed
> scores!
>
> Best,
> Steve
Thanks Steve and Dave. Yes, excuse me, notation software is what I
meant. I'm very familiar with composition softwares, but new to any
notation software. I'll try out Sibelius; thanks for the suggestion!
I agree with you about prioritizing printed scores over a sharp-
looking GUI, but I still think there are some functionality issues in
Finale that seemed archaic. You're right, the playback engine is
pretty bad! I downloaded Mozart, and I like that it's a small app,
although it's pretty basic. However, I'm looking for an application
that will run on multiple platorms: MS, Mac, and Linux.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:46:35 +0100, "David Webber" <...@musical-dot-demon-dot-co.uk> wrote:
"b-f" <...@cui.com> wrote in message
news...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks Steve and Dave. Yes, excuse me, notation software is what I
> meant.
I gathered that.
>... I downloaded Mozart, and I like that it's a small app,
> although it's pretty basic.
>...
If you don't mind me asking, in what way do you find it "basic".
In some ways it is more basic than more expensive programs, but in some
cases people assume from the price that it will be, and tend to overlook the
fact that in many ways it isn't.
Obviously if it is basic in some respects, I need to work on that.
Equally, if it is a case of some of its less basic features being overlooked
when people first come to it, I need to make them more obvious. I'll be
grateful for any thoughts on this you can give me.
Dave
--
David Webber
Author of 'Mozart the Music Processor'
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:58:45 +1000, "Barry Graham" <...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
"b-f" <...@cui.com> wrote in message
news...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 10, 1:57 pm, "Steve Latham" <...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > "b-f" <...@cui.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > Hi there!
> > > I'm wondering if anyone can give me some composition-software
> > > alternatives to Finale.
You could also try Overture.
Demo here :-
http://www.geniesoft.com
-------------------------------------
Barry Graham
Melbourne, Australia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 02:55:32 GMT, Michael Bednarek <...@gtz.pbz.nh> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:58:01 -0700, b-f wrote in rec.music.compose:
[snip]
> I downloaded Mozart, and I like that it's a small app,
>although it's pretty basic. However, I'm looking for an application
>that will run on multiple platorms: MS, Mac, and Linux.
There are many reports of MOZART users who have run the program
successfully on those platforms.
--
Michael Bednarek http://mbednarek.com/ "POST NO BILLS"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 03:37:04 -0000, Adam Matlock <...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm curious as to what some composition software would be (as opposed
to notation software). I always assumed that folks just loaded up on
the extraneous sound sets for Finale or Sibelius as composition tools,
but I would be interested to know the difference in features, etc.
Also, a free notation software (not particularly user-friendly, but
extremely powerful) is Lilypad, an open-source program. There is at
least one Wiki dedicated to user instruction for this software, but it
requires some basic code knowledge that I have yet to completely
master. I've seen some extremely pretty final products made on Lilypad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:57:26 +1300, Adam <...@example.com> wrote:
Adam Matlock wrote:
> I'm curious as to what some composition software would be (as opposed
> to notation software). I always assumed that folks just loaded up on
> the extraneous sound sets for Finale or Sibelius as composition tools,
> but I would be interested to know the difference in features, etc.
[ ... ]
Here's perhaps the best around today;
http://commonmusic.sourceforge.net/doc/cm.html
http://pinhead.music.uiuc.edu/~hkt/icmc07/
Its advantages are, that within the Lisp programming
environment, trial-and-error or auditions can be done,
and that the code chunks can be documented as you go
(leaving one with a documented page of contributing
functions to one's 'composition').
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:35:25 +0200, Afoklala <...@afoklala.invalid> wrote:
Op Fri, 12 Oct 2007 03:37:04 -0000 schreef Adam Matlock:
> I'm curious as to what some composition software would be (as opposed
> to notation software). I always assumed that folks just loaded up on
> the extraneous sound sets for Finale or Sibelius as composition tools,
> but I would be interested to know the difference in features, etc.
Composition software would be software that helps with the composition
process. E.g., the user will establish a set of rules that his/her music
should adhere to, and then the software will translate these rules into
actual notes. The user could then edit these notes again, of course.
An example I heard some place was a program that calculated transitions -
starting, say, from music with many notes high up in the key of G major, it
would calculate what notes would bring this situation in 13.3 seconds to a
music with sparse, long, low notes in an octotonic field.
I personally used software to create different kinds of randomization.
E.g., to create duration values or intervallic structures that adhered to
the Poisson's distribution law. This would have cost me years to calculate
myself. You can hear some results at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~dormoljw/mp3/styx.mp3
http://www.xs4all.nl/~dormoljw/mp3/minmeer.mp3
http://www.xs4all.nl/~dormoljw/mids/generale_repetitie.mid
--
Jan Willem from Odijk, Netherlands
Listen to my music on http://www.xs4all.nl/~dormoljw/gbcomponist.html
e-mail in From-field is wrong, real e-mail is:
jw point van point dormolen on xs4all point nl
(change point into dot, on into at)
And then there's this:
Buy Land Now. It's Not Being Made Any More.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 20:20:57 GMT, "Steve Latham" <...@verizon.net> wrote:
"Afoklala" <...@afoklala.invalid> wrote in message
news...@40tude.net...
> Op Fri, 12 Oct 2007 03:37:04 -0000 schreef Adam Matlock:
>
>> I'm curious as to what some composition software would be (as opposed
>> to notation software). I always assumed that folks just loaded up on
>> the extraneous sound sets for Finale or Sibelius as composition tools,
>> but I would be interested to know the difference in features, etc.
>
> Composition software would be software that helps with the composition
> process. E.g., the user will establish a set of rules that his/her music
> should adhere to, and then the software will translate these rules into
> actual notes. The user could then edit these notes again, of course.
> An example I heard some place was a program that calculated transitions -
> starting, say, from music with many notes high up in the key of G major,
> it
> would calculate what notes would bring this situation in 13.3 seconds to a
> music with sparse, long, low notes in an octotonic field.
I think Jan Willem's response is valid, though I would say this is at one
extreme end of the range - using the computer to compose "for you" - to do
some calculating basically. I was thinking more in the "composing by ear"
realm, which would include sequencing and audio programs. For instance, you
can certainly use Finale to input notes, play them back, and adjust what you
want. But very often, working in a MIDI sequencer can be more effective in
this regard because you're not distracted by all of the notation issues and
can go on sound. Probably more and more people are "composing in" Finale and
the like, and that's partly to do with generation. But most people would
compose at the keyboard, or in their mind, and then possibly on paper, then
input it into Finale to produce a finished score.
The real reason I caution against conceptualizing of Finale et al as
"composition" programs is what I see happening - I see "composers" writing
pieces for Flute and Viola with Flute playing a Bb below middle C and Viola
in Bass clef. Luckily, Finale is dumbing our composers down enough so that
Viola automatically selects Alto clef, but it isn't yet to the point (TMK)
that it will tell you a Bb is out of the Flute's range - though you can
check ranges now. In a sense, what's happening is people aren't composing
for Oboe and Bassoon, but a lot of time for Oboe sound and Bassoon sound
with no real concept of or regard for how the real instruments would be able
to tackle the piece.
Of course, using Finale solely for Notation doesn't stop people from writing
low Bbs for Flute either! But my point is, Finale was really designed to
produce publisher-quality (or publishable) scores/sheet music. So in that
sense it's a Graphics program, and less so a music program. The music part
of it has always been getting better, and playback is improving, because
they're succumbing to pressure from the market, so it is now more of a
composition tool than ever, but, there are limitations.
best,
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 03:09:02 -0000, Adam Matlock <...@gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting.
I used Sibelius 3 as an undergraduate and learned a great deal from
the glaring "red notes" that came up every time you went out of range
for an instrument. You can select between something like "competent
amateur" and "professional" functional ranges as you go through
inputting a piece - and it certainly doesn't help if you've conceived
many of your parts (or your entire composition) outside of an
instrument range, but it can help in getting familiar with the ranges
and capacities of instruments.
So you suggest that the use of a sequencer or composition software is
to help a composer get familiar with balances of sound, clarity of
texture, etc? This is one trouble I've had as I'm trying to work into
the realm of orchestral composition, (and would probably help my
chamber writing as well, although I feel as though I have a better
handle on this with the writing I've attempted so far.)
So is it entirely old-fashioned to try and do as much as possible with
pencil and paper and your musical imagination before heading to a next
step? In moments of doubt, I wonder if my ability as a composer is
limited by the range of music I tend to "hear" in my head. I also
wonder if that would be helped at all by the use of a decent keyboard,
sequencer or composing program. Is this subject bitterly debated in
the current musical environment?
thanks all, for input and advice.
-Adam
|
|
|
|
|
|
|