Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Linux music notation editor criteria
From: Dave Phillips (dlphilp_AT_bright.net)
Date: Fri Jul 16 2004 - 04:33:30 EEST
Hi Chris:
Thank you very much for your response. Some further considerations
follow...
Chris Cannam wrote:
>
>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.
>
Sorry, it should have read "staves". Ergo, you can listen to music
already entered on other staffs while recording a new one.
>>[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.
>
He doesn't specify, even in the article, but I suspect you have the
right interpretation.
>>[ ] number of independent rhythmic layers per staff
>>
>>
>
>Not supported at all -- a big omission.
>
Indeed. I assume it's on the RG Todo list ?
>> maximum number of staves per system
>>
>>
>
>No built-in limit.
>
Excellent.
>>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.
>
Still pretty neat. In his survey Belkin found that only Mosaic was
"unlimited" in that regard.
>>[x] non-contiguous
>> conditional selection
>>
>>
>
>What do you think that means?
>
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 ?
>>[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).
>
What about cut/copy/paste elements such as dynamic signs, tempo
indicators, crescendi/decrescendi, etc. ?
>> 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).
>
Sounds good.
>>Special/custom notation:
>>[ ] unusual staves
>>[?] simultaneous key signatures
>>
>>
>
>Not quite sure what's intended here either.
>
I believe he means simultaneous different keysigs. Is that do-able in RG ?
>>[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.
>
Ah, that's cool. Do you plan to support additive timesigs ? What about
the simultaneous different timesigs ?
>> 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).
>
Ouch. It's on the Todo list ?
>>[ ] chord notation: graphic, playback, learn via MIDI
>>[ ] fretboard notation
>>[ ] figured-bass notation
>>
>>
>
>None of these is supported at all.
>
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.
>>[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.
>
Too bad. It's often the only solution to some notation problems.
>>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.
>
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.
>>[x] import from text editor
>>
>>
>
>Well, you can cut and paste!
>
Sure can... :)
>>[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.
>
Nice though.
>>[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.
>
But of course exporting to LilyPond gives the user all that capability.
>>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.
>
I thought you might like that... :)
>>[ ] 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.
>
Good.
>>[x] views: scroll, page, template, any percent, multiple
>>simultaeous views
>>
>>
>
>Linear, continuous page, multi-page, any size and multiple
>simultaneous views anyway.
>
Excellent. Can I edit notation regardless of view ?
>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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Jul 16 2004 - 03:54:01 EEST