What's wrong in the world of notation softwares ?

Discussions about our next-generation scoring application, Dorico.
andgle
Member
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 6:36 pm
Contact:

Re: What's wrong in the world of notation softwares ?

Post by andgle » Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:16 pm

Brian Roland wrote:
Tue Jul 18, 2017 5:44 pm
andgle wrote:
Tue Jul 18, 2017 4:51 pm
Brian Roland wrote:
Tue Jul 18, 2017 4:42 pm

More or less what I had in mind is that Cubase incorporates Dorico flows (even if it's from Dorico's own code base, but simply shows it visually in the normal CuBase way in the main overview). If you call up a 'Dorico Editor" it's actually calling up Dorico modules to work with compatible 'tracks'. Performance data could optionally be extracted to pure MIDI tracks and the like if desired.

CuBase itself wouldn't be responsible for displaying or manipulating anything in a Dorico track. Dorico itself would do that........meanwhile Cubase would ignore anything but the pure playback properties of the Dorico track (or extracted performance tracks).
Seems to me that the only thing you would gain from this versus some sort of "Rewire 2" is a pricetag that I think neither Dorico or Cubase users would be particularly happy about.
No, you'd gain actual integrated Dorico editors, as well as the ability to manipulate the performance data independently of the score data. It could effectively extract a performance stream into a performance track and keep that independent of what is displayed via notation if desired/needed, but otherwise it'd play it back exactly as entered in Dorico.

Yeah, but that's why we've got Play mode, which already can do timing independently. With time, I think we'll also have velocity, controller automation, and maybe the ability to enter 'un-scored' midi data, like keyswitches.

My point is - I'm very optimistic about Doricos "midi" capabilities in the future, and I think everything that is needed for a good mockup fits inside the concept of Dorico. And I'm sure that if you've got requests or ideas, they will be taken seriously into account.
But I think trying to create a £800 Cubico that needs to maintain and balance two such different approaches only will result in clutter.

Here's my wishlist for Cubase - Dorico integration:
- Better excange of data (≈better xml import/export in cubase + some way to exchange multiple flows)
- Universal copy/paste of "midi" data: copy a section in Cubase, and paste it directly into Dorico.
- Tempo sync
- A synced marker track that is visible in both Dorico and Cubase
- Automatic stem-by-stem rewire

With Play mode's potential, and sync features such as these, what's missing?
The benefits of this versus Cubico is:
- It keeps the price down for those who are only interested in Dorico or Cubase
- The internal logic can remain completely separated - making each app optimized for it's own approach and features
- The road maps can remain separated - allowing the Dorico team to push new features in it's own pace. They are more free to listen to their user, as they don't have to consider what fits inside of Cubase's structure
- Personally, I think having two sets of key commands is actually a huge benefit (of course - these should be uniformed as much as possible). I rarely mix up KCs in two such different apps - I think I would be more confused if the same KC applied to two similar but semantically completely different functions within the same app. It also makes it possible to have one perfect KC setup for Dorico workflow, and one for Cubase workflow.
Anders

macOS Sierra

Brian Roland
Member
Posts: 614
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 5:24 pm
Contact:

Re: What's wrong in the world of notation softwares ?

Post by Brian Roland » Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:23 pm

Brian Roland wrote:
Tue Jul 18, 2017 6:39 pm
Rob Tuley wrote:
Tue Jul 18, 2017 5:55 pm
FlowerPower wrote:
Tue Jul 18, 2017 1:27 pm
Not sure what you mean by that, but here's a typical scenario:
Music starts with ideas, inspiration, composition. So I start fumbling around with an idea for strings. ... So after some ideas have been recorded or note has been entered, one by one, ... So I need to export the material into a DAW again ... So while developing this idea, I can't really rely of on of this apps. ...
Sometimes (not very often!) I feel sad at being old.

Not because of any problems it causes ME, but because of how much more recent generations have never learned to do without continually relying on crutches like computer software.
OK, based on my previous posts in the forums, I'm incompetent to use two standard issue ears and a piece of paper.....as is my entire generation. I get it...

Newer generations don't have a choice. Our 'crutches' to include REAL PEOPLE in the process have been decimated by the slash and burn, high and mighty, snob infested, hazing tactics of our predecessors.

Try to build a real 200 piece marching band, or a local Suzuki String program in 2017 (every accomplished Conservatory performance graduate started somewhere). The resources, support and training from our academic and religious institutions, and the disciplinary and administrative clout to pull it all together has been all but decimated. No one led the way to preserve the system or enhance it, and did everything in their power to push any 'trouble makers' out of the industry. The few brave men and women I remember standing up in all the 'associations and union meetings' in the 70s and 80s who were voicing concerns or 'rocking the boat' towards meeting some of the on coming industry challenges head on were flat out black-balled and forced to find other occupations.

You can't even get a decent modern brass instrument (beginner, intermediate, nor professional, yet still costing into the thousands of dollars per unit after the families finance them) that doesn't fall apart within 2 years (with no way to fix it due to all the new electro-bonding processes involved). Even so....we're sending kids home with bills at over $75 a pop to put on a stinking water key, or replace junk pads that fall out a week later. "Do it yourself" the old heads say.....but the truth is, you can't anymore....none of it really works the way it did 30 or 40 years ago....the materials and methods available have changed that much. The brass is too thin to rub, it's of an alloy that cannot simply be hand soldered, etc. Modern woodwinds are even worse...you can't flex the keys and align/set the pads. Nothing uses the old heated laqure method anymore. The best you can do is peel a sticker, poke it in, and hope it sets at some point (which is rare). It's a bloody nightmare.....and this is coming from sales people that will bald face lie and tell you that intermediate flutes with step rather than inline key configurations 'do not exist', or that they can't supply you with replacement parts, etc. This is coming from places where directors can be blackballed from an entire state for wanting to use Brand X instruments instead of Brand Y. We're all locked in....and WE 'incompetent' teachers/directors don't have much course to fight back. Plus...one needs time to actually TEACH and PERFORM music at some point.

Building a solid instrumental music program is a constant series of dances with school/community ethics and politics. Almost anything we come up with to solve a seemingly simple problem is subject to stepping on some powerful person's toes who can crush you like a bug. It's not t he same world as it was in 1950. Even when we think we might have some options.....we often have to keep them quiet and 'under the table'....again, major ethical delimas. Good lord....why should it be an ethical delima full of potential legal pits to make sure a kid has an instrument that actually works?

Well...in 2017...it is. Passing out a great method book and teaching your bom off isn't enough :( EVERYTHING is questioned and scrutinized instead of 'backed' by modern 'administrators'.

So here we are in 2017. A kid walks into your program holding some X brand horn made in India and purchased at Wal Mart that is 1/2" too long. It barely makes a noise even resembling the instrument it is supposed to be. Industry standard reeds/mouthpieces etc will not fit it. It can NOT be tuned to fit in with an 'ensemble' of various branded instruments...and we're stuck with it! We can't even send a note to the parents about it, as that would be politically offensive somehow. We can't go to an anonymous source and have a proper instrument 'donated'...again for the same political non-sense reasons. This is just one of many examples of the issues we 'modern incompetent younger whipper-snappers' (who based on previous posts, obviously can't transpose with two standard ears and a piece of paper) are faced with daily.

You can't ask parents to help raise funds anymore, and you can't ask a kid to practice and give an honest assessment without possibly getting sued into oblivion. You can't do instrument inspections, or enforce any kind of maintenance regiment (even if YOU offer to pay for it out of your own pocket, it's offensive, and a possible law suit waiting to happen).

You can't find anyone that will come tune a piano anymore. The few that try are clueless and end up making it WORSE. Try to find a school to learn how to do it properly, and they'll take your money for a while, then HAZE you out in less than 6 months with a bunch of social/fraternal nonsense that has nothing to do with maintaining musical instruments. So yeah, the churches are putting out beautiful and massive pipe organs on the curb for disposal, and moving in Digital pianos and wiz bang multi-media karaoke systems. Not so much because they 'desire this', but because they don't have many options anymore. Even if they are fortunate enough to find someone that can (or want to learn) how to play the old organ.........getting someone to fly in from 20 states away to maintain it is no longer practical (provided you can even find someone that can/will still do it).

Believe me....'my generation' tried with everything we had to be loyal, and devoted to our mentors and their guilds. We begged to keep our local instrument makers and service companies going strong, and locally financed, but the advice from YOUR GENERATION was to 'keep your mouth shut and keep your band hall clean. These things are NOT your problem." Then ya'll retired with tri-state trifectas for pensions and benefits, and never looked back. We practically WORSHIPED our mentors....and tolerated endless HAZING B.S. rituals that wasted YEARS of our lives, while our 'peers' were out there making millions to put together 4 track 'pop tunes'. We 'kept our band halls clean' as directed....and THIS is what we've inherited. The good, the bad, and the ugly.

As for buying 'stock arrangements' from the publishing houses.....well, in 2017 it's notoriously difficult to build an ensemble that actually fits the ideal model. One ends up having to rearrange stuff to fit whatever odd-ball instrumentation you can manage to cobble together out of a rapidly changing community. We can have as many as 9 different pedagogical ability levels in the same ensemble to account for...so a good 60% of the time we end up having to re-arrange everything anyway...thus the growing popularity for Scoring software and some sort of personal or portable PC. We need custom arrangements on a daily basis, but we do NOT have time to sit down and hand write all fifty-some odd parts, in all the clefs and transpositions we need (which literally can change from day to day, week to week, as players come and go on about their lives).

We know our theory, and we know many of the old rules, methodologies, and processes. To this day, a good ole Rubank or Arban book is golden, but we don't get a schedule or a pedagogically leveled group of students that those methods will work in anymore. We could do it if we had the OLD 'people' systems in place....but all those systems and support groups are long gone, and attempting to rebuild them is pretty much professional suicide among modern school districts...so please keep all this in mind.

The constructivst learning theory currently pushed by many school systems around the world pretty much forces us to abandon the old proven methodologies rooted in behaviorist or situated cognition learning theory. Many of us in the field don't like it, but to keep our jobs, we must turn in 'differentiated' lesson plans for every individual child. Besides the fact that music method books are not on our state text book lists, and we are not allowed to ask kids to buy their own, All this means, on multiple levels, that we really need the Notation software to create our own 'method books'. They change and grow pretty much daily. Yep, it's forcing us to reinvent the music methodology wheel...and in many ways make it WORSE than anything that was used in the 1950s, but if we want the public school gig...we fall in line or get fired.

Moreover, In Nineteen Seventy weird, your typical school music program for a student body of 1,000 kids to build a talent pool from had 6 to 8 people on music staff. You got the same students every day, for at least 50 minutes per day (we're lucky to get a different group every day for 20 minutes a pop). If you wanted to keep oboes and bassoons in inventory, and develop people to play them...you could do so. It's not that simple anymore though. There is no money for a bassoon, which cost as much as a small fleet of beginner line trumpets. These days we are lucky to get ONE quazi certified teacher for EVERYTHING music on campus, who is expected to do Instrumental, Vocal, and General Music for all grades K-12. They demand we field up to 6 performance groups open to public scrutiny in any given month, incorporating all kinds of dance and movement drills, full uniforms, etc...with zero budget, and all that is expected with less than 90 minutes rehersal time per week (all scattered minutes, mostly spent setting up and breaking down in a 'temporary' classroom at that).

So...forgive us if we find 20 minutes and a set of technologies to sketch out and communicate ideas. It's not our fault the unions have died (and we were never 'good enough' to join them anyway), and getting a group of studio musicians together is not only extremely difficult, but far more expensive than quite an elaborate home studio. It's not our fault that universities and conservatories no longer graduate enough specialists in various instrument families to set up studios for private lessons in every decent sized town anymore. It's not our fault that a kid right out of college, will be expected to lead two choirs, 4 bands, and teach 12 general music classes in a single day can't develop oboe and basson players for 'traditional' wind band stock arrangements (that are ironically still on required lists for program evaluations). It's not our fault that budgets are not provided, and that arranging various booster or sponsorship organizations is now a taboo (considered unethical) practice.

Forgive us that our 'peers' that we might attempt to organize into reading and session groups, who majored in some instrument 20 years ago hasn't had time to pick one up and PLAY in more than 20 years....because he's got a family, and a life, and is always slogging popcorn and cokes in some two bit concession stand to help pay for that $6,000 community tuba and twelve $200 mouth pieces that'll be shared among a dozen kids.

Enjoy the 'superior generation' complex, but in all honesty, you didn't leave much of a legacy to keep us on your dream path for the way music 'should be done' throughout the ages. What we have, is what we have. We do the best with it that we can.

We begged and pleaded, warned of the coming changes in the world, and possible methods to 'get organized' and address them. We protested, courted, tried our best to lobby as 'young fools', and went unheard. We can't turn back now...at least not without a major social movement, orchestrated from the top down by leading Music Universities and Conservatories, with some BIG MONEY backers, and loads of international law firms to undo the morbid and nearly insane legal, social, and ethical 'advances' that have put us in the position we are today when it comes to building musicians for acoustical instrument based ensembles. My 'incompetent' generation asked our Deans these things, and when we submitted our thesis papers to attempt to address some of these issues about our crumbling support systems and resource supply lines, not only did they fail us on those papers for 'trying to rock the boat' and 'stick our noses into industrial matters of which they do not belong'....they pretty much told us to shut the heck up and get out of their institution. So...we did....and from then on they went from graduating hundreds of musicians per year, to graduating less than 10 per year (most of which leave professional music via attrition). The Universities have their most qualified scholars, still getting six digit salaries to direct the same basketball pep band they've been doing since they came on as a 'graduate assistant' 20 years ago....and such 'scholarly leaders' out right refuse to publish, or sit on any peer review boards where they might actually be influential in helping to hammer together plans and resources do something about some of these issues......

They play the fight song 200 times a month, graduate maybe a dozen music major students per year, and get the six figure pay check........this is what MY GENERATION had/has to work with in terms of scholarly 'leadership'.

We're now a DAW generation....and don't have much choice in the matter anymore.
Last edited by Brian Roland on Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:27 pm, edited 6 times in total.

FlowerPower
Junior Member
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2015 5:07 pm
Contact:

Re: What's wrong in the world of notation softwares ?

Post by FlowerPower » Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:37 pm

andgle wrote:
Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:16 pm

Here's my wishlist for Cubase - Dorico integration:
- Better excange of data (≈better xml import/export in cubase + some way to exchange multiple flows)
- Universal copy/paste of "midi" data: copy a section in Cubase, and paste it directly into Dorico.
Mockups often contain a LOT of tracks, so relying on having to import/export tracks manually between apps is already and outdated solution IMO. The most future proof solution would be a way for the two apps to be one, if one insists on keeping the two apps separated, I mean. This would mean that if you open a MIDI region in the score editor while using Cubase, the software would do whatever needed for that region to open up in Dorico. But there are many things to deal with if the apps should be kept separate.
The benefits of this versus Cubico is:
- It keeps the price down for those who are only interested in Dorico or Cubase
Not if one can buy Cubase with or without the pro score functionality.

"The internal logic can remain completely separated - making each app optimized for it's own approach and features"
I don't think that makes, sense, given that once one has opened up a region or track in the score editor (Reaper, Cubase, Performer, Logic and others can do that already) that "score editor" would be Dorico as we know it today - with local menus, it's own contextual menus, the needed key commands (which in many cases would be the same KCs you use in the non-score area: play, play from selection, move one bar left/right, rewind, delete, transpose etc...

"The road maps can remain separated - allowing the Dorico team to push new features in it's own pace."
With a model where one constantly would copy-paste events or import/export events (imagine how often that would have to happen), one would still have to ensure full compatibility. And don't get this wrong, but after 4 years of developments, Dorico can't export and import material to/from itself even (yet).

"Personally, I think having two sets of key commands is actually a huge benefit (of course - these should be uniformed as much as possible".
What would the benefit be if they should be uniformed as much as possible? One clear drawback would be that if you change a KC in Cubase, you need to change it in D as well, to keep the commands uniform.


"I think I would be more confused if the same KC applied to two similar but semantically completely different functions within the same app."
I use a DAW where the score editor has it's own set of key commands, but where all the other commands are common. It's a no brainer, really.

andgle
Member
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 6:36 pm
Contact:

Re: What's wrong in the world of notation softwares ?

Post by andgle » Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:23 pm

FlowerPower wrote: Mockups often contain a LOT of tracks, so relying on having to import/export tracks manually between apps is already and outdated solution IMO.

I agree, but hopefully this would only be needed once in a project - if you need to send it off in a different format or do some final adjustments
This would mean that if you open a MIDI region in the score editor while using Cubase, the software would do whatever needed for that region to open up in Dorico

Again (I'm sure I'm being naive here, but why not? :D ) - with the futher development of Play mode, I hope there won't be any need for midi editing in Cubase. Why not use Dorico for midi tracks and cubase for audio tracks?
Not if one can buy Cubase with or without the pro score functionality.
True, but then we would also need a "Cubase with or without pro audio functionallity", or it would be too expensive for those only interested in Dorico's engraving capabilities.
andgle wrote:The internal logic can remain completely separated - making each app optimized for it's own approach and features
I didn't mean the UI, but the internal structure - as Paul says ""The model of music notation in Dorico is *completely* different to the data model in Cubase"
With a model where one constantly would copy-paste events or import/export events, one would still have to ensure full compatibility
That's true, but I don't think that would necessarily be any different from current compability issues with midi import/export.
What would the benefit be if they should be uniformed as much as possible?
I just meant that zoom, transport, and other common functions should be the same (I think some of them are already). Uncommon functions should be optimized for each app. You're totally right that an app may have different KC sets for different parts of the program- that is indeed a no brainer (and that would indeed allow the same optimisation). My argument was totally bad, but my point is, I don't feel too much compassion for those saying "I want Cubico, because it's so hard to learn KCs for two applications", as there are benefits of having separate sets (either within the same app or in different apps)
Anders

macOS Sierra

FlowerPower
Junior Member
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2015 5:07 pm
Contact:

Re: What's wrong in the world of notation softwares ?

Post by FlowerPower » Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:11 pm

andgle wrote:
Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:23 pm
FlowerPower wrote: Mockups often contain a LOT of tracks, so relying on having to import/export tracks manually between apps is already and outdated solution IMO.

I agree, but hopefully this would only be needed once in a project - if you need to send it off in a different format or do some final adjustments
If Dorico gets what it needs in terms of all the useful key commands in Cubase + all the functionality in Cubase (minus the audio tracks), I wouldn't need to jump back and forth between the two apps that much. Personally, I haven't recorded/mixed albums or worked with audio for several years - but there's still a lot of what you may call "DAW stuff" that's missing in Dorico. And of course - audio tracks in Dorico has come up a few times in this forum an elsewhere already, but my point is only that adding audio tracks in Dorico (and the relevant functionality that implies) + developing some interchange solution between Cubase and Dorico could represent just as much work as heading towards a unified, 'modular' app. And there are dozens of benefits from not having to deal with two apps.

"with the futher development of Play mode, I hope there won't be any need for midi editing in Cubase. Why not use Dorico for midi tracks and cubase for audio tracks?"
See above (and earlier posts from others than me) about the benefits of having one app to deal with. And - to use myself as an example again - Cubase and Dorico has some clear benefits over Logic, which has been my main tool 'forever'. If I would have to learn one new tool, and not two (of which one of them - Dorico - still is missing some of the stuff I find essential (eg some Sibelius stuff), switching would have been a lot easier.

"True, but then we would also need a "Cubase with or without pro audio functionallity", or it would be too expensive for those only interested in Dorico's engraving capabilities."
I don't think finding a way to enable different parts of a program is an impossible task It's of course more complicated than just making Cubase or just making Dorico. But is it a lot more complicated than making both? Even if the answer would be yes, I'm convinced that it would be a solution that's much better for almost all users.

"The model of music notation in Dorico is *completely* different to the data model in Cubase"
Well, I have no idea what it would take for Steinberg to offer a solution which would - for the user - *appear* more or less as if one would have to deal with only one app. I'm just saying that such a solution would make diving into the Steinberg world a lot more tempting, and I know that many Steinberg users also really would like such a solution. It would serve as a strong argument for going Steinberg for all current and future Logic+Dorico users (and many other Dorico users who don't use Cubase).

"I just meant that zoom, transport, and other common functions should be the same (I think some of them are already). Uncommon functions should be optimized for each app."
Well, I know this is how many Logic users see it: they/we use a dedicated score app not because the Logic score editor is horrible, many of us actually think it would be tons better if it only would have kept being developed by Apple. There's even stuff in Logic's score editor that some of us find superior to what the dedicated score apps offer. Many of us would never consider any of the the three main score apps if Logic only would have, say, 17,5% :-) more (silly with a percentage here, but forget that for now) more score functionality than it has.

So if Apple can make a combo app that's so close to being what most Logic users need, why can't Steinberg make a combo app that also only lacks those silly 17.5% I mentioned - but spend a handful of years to add those missing things? Steinberg is serious about notation, they don't suffer from the pop culture thing Apple has gone into, they are serious about Kontakt, with working with Kontakt libraries etc... Again: Logic is closer than Steinberg in terms of being capable of delivering such a product (and who knows, maybe they are working on it), but Steinberg is closer in terms of having the needed people, knowledge and (drum roll.....) *interest* in the stuff I'm talking about here.

"but my point is, I don't feel too much compassion for those saying "I want Cubico, because it's so hard to learn KCs for two applications"
The KC part of this is only a little part of it. A product - or merging two products (or pseudo-merging them - is about much more than key commands. Most of all it's about providing a workflow that doesn't need loads of interruptions because you need to do some of your important tasks in one app, and other tasks in another. Editing music with decent looking notation and using the many advanced MIDI features the best DAWs have shouldn't have ti require two apps.
Last edited by FlowerPower on Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ultradust
Junior Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:37 am
Contact:

Re: What's wrong in the world of notation softwares ?

Post by ultradust » Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:58 am

I agree with a lot of what Brian Roland and FlowerPower have written in this thread on a variety of topics. Very well-reasoned arguments.

I'm also a huge fan of Dorico and the tenacity with which Mr. Spreadbury and team have tackled the revolution of the notation world. I believe Dorico is going to be the uncontested leader in notation once a few more milestones are crossed.

Overall, I would definitely like to see maximum integration between Cubase and Dorico, notwithstanding different object models and technical challenges. A quick note: Maybe it's just me, but I get weary of reading the terse comments from moderators who sound angry that people are excited about the possibilities with Steinberg products. Sometimes a single moderator comment makes us all feel unwelcome.

To those who say, "I would never want a DAW with my notation software, or vice versa," I would encourage you to think about the idea that other people have variegated workflows that aren't necessarily the same as yours. Increasing interoperability and flexibility will serve to increase the likelihood that a given Steinberg product will appeal to a wider range of people.

The problem I see frequently in conversations like this is that you get two camps:
1. Limiters: A somewhat stubborn and set-in-ways group that wants to create a narrow definition for what a tool should be. An extreme view in this camp here would be: "Dorico should only be notation software and that's it, end of story."
2. Exciters: A somewhat visionary and flexible group that wants to encourage broadening the scope of a tool to meet wider needs. There's a possible danger of wanting to mix in misguided "excitement," but this group likes innovation toward extensibility and customization. An extreme view in this camp here would be: "Dorico and Cubase should be integrated completely."

The Limiters generally want to keep things the way they are, and going forward on a narrowly defined track. (Some even try to be Brick Wall Limiters and define for everyone else what is "professional" or "the right way.") The Exciters generally want to look at different ways things can be integrated to support additional ways of working.

This is true for just about any type of tool out there. We DAW/notation people think we're unique. But, just for the sake of illustration here, go with me for a moment into another sphere of expertise: video stabilization.

In the video world, there are two core types of image stabilization software: 2D stabilization tools examine frames of footage to recognize consistent pixels between frames and keep them locked to the same position in the frame, at the cost of cropping and scaling the video. 3D stabilization tools "solve" a scene by intake of footage and photos from multiple angles, creating a model of the space which allows the video footage to be located in that space and thereby stabilized. (Yes, there are other technologies such as gyro-driven stabilization plots, etc., but I'm trying to just make a point here.) Those who use the 3D software see themselves as being more professional, because the work involved in "solving" a scene requires a certain level of technical sophistication. They see 2D stabilization as inferior and incomplete, a hack of sorts. Those who use 2D stabilization include plenty of major film and television studios; the 2D tech is relatively fast and lightweight and lets people just get the work done. And even a teenager "working in the basement/garage" can figure out how to use it.

As the increasing availability of video software has opened up the door to a variety of people wanting to stabilize their footage, of course the various software manufacturers' forums include conversations about, "Wouldn't it be great if we could combine the 3D and 2D approaches? What if they both existed in one program and we could just optimize our workflow based on whichever approach is better for the given project?" But the 3D purists are disgusted that their professional software would be tainted by 2D hacks. And the oldest-school among them makes comments like, "Well, you shouldn't even need stabilization anyway. If you bought a Steadicam for $30,000 like me back in 1983, you'd have professional, stable footage anyway and you wouldn't need to rely on crutches like this newfangled software here."

Well, one company finally combined the utility of 3D (3-axis) stabilization with the ease of a 2D-style stabilization interface: proDAD Mercalli. Does it do true 3D solving? No. Would it satisfy a 3D purist? Not at all. But does it give superior results to people who need a certain workflow? Yes, it does. It would be even cooler if it exposed the 3D capabilities in the interface so 3D purists could use it in their workflows.

Or, maybe more near to our collective interests: Take a look at the world of music players and taggers. I was in a conversation recently regarding an audio file tagging utility. Many of the tool's users prefer it to remain exactly as-is. But it doesn't currently support user-defined lists of tags that can be easily applied. In 2017, numerous audio players support tag lists out of the box, so for many users this functionality seems like a common-sense baseline requirement. But Limiters want the app to remain as-is and declare, "Just type in the values you want. You don't need to keep lists." The Exciter users say, "Well, I'm managing 5 different custom tag types for xyz commercial reason, and I need to keep my lists well-formed and normalized. So I need lists." My thought is that it wouldn't hurt the Limiters at all if custom tag lists were implemented; it would just be an option. But the Limiters in that discussion have strict ideas. "That's not the correct way to manage your data," they proclaim. "You should never need this level of granularity." They want to dictate, to everyone else in the world, what the correct use of a piece of music tagging software should be.

Every industry and topic has its elitists, its upstart kid rebels working in from the edges, its self-appointed dictators of all ages and all the moderates in-between. The elitists often have years of experience, critically acclaimed accomplishments, a highly-refined set of skills and ample knowledge. And the kids and hobbyists often have a cruder approach (which we can all drolly glance askance at, since "we were kids in a basement once, chortle chortle"). Sometimes the elitist holds a concert for a crowd of thousands, while the kid hangs out in his basement. But sometimes the kid ends up producing an international hit, while the elitist hangs out orchestrating a 58-part concerto that no one will ever hear except when he plays the MIDI rendering for his sister at Thanksgiving.

We all need tools. We all have our approaches and ways of working. It's great when tools support a variety of ways to work.

One thing I've learned to appreciate in my life is the wide variety of applications and approaches a single tool can elicit. Even more, when tools can interoperate extensively, the usefulness can expand exponentionally.

Zapier, for example.

So think through this with me:

Let's say Steinberg finds a way to integrate Cubase and Dorico in deep and novel ways. These integrations don't have to be forced on anyone; there could be special editions of the software that provide the full "Cubrico/Doribase" experience. Or the features could be modular/optional and turned on/off at will. There are already many features like this in Cubase now that plenty of customers never use. These features could be implemented so that, if they are disabled, they wouldn't impact performance at all. So an additive integration between Cubase and Dorico - building value between the two apps - doesn't have to hurt anyone's workflow. But not having this integration does hurt people's workflow, to Brian's and FlowerPower's points.

If integration exists, it serves more people and the userbase expands. If integration does not exist, it keeps the Limiter group happy but pushes many other people (including me) out of the Dorico userbase.

Why do I favor integration? Very simple. When I open, work on and close files authored in Steinberg products, I want to be able to natively (or at least easily) use them in as many Steinberg products as possible. (As a Cubase and WaveLab user since 1997, I can attest to the strange differences between those applications, the flagship audio tools made by the same company. No, it's not just that one's a mastering tool and the other a traditional DAW.) If I work on something in Cubase for awhile, then want to switch to Dorico, I currently have to get out of the creative zone and start thinking about the technical (computer, not music) aspects of ensuring my work converts to the other environment. If I start in Dorico and move to Cubase, same thing. For the Limiters out there who work in a specific environment (doing school band scores or university string section arrangements or the like), you may already be very happy with Dorico as-is. But for others who use blended production models (especially in the commercial sector), we would welcome the day when Dorico and Cubase work seamlessly together and switching between the creative paradigms of each is just a matter of opening and closing interface elements. And I'm not someone sitting around in a garage or basement, for those inclined to perjoratives.

I always want to push myself to maximal expertise, proficiency and knowledge in audio production. But I never want to look down on someone else's approach to work just because it doesn't coincide with my own. I myself would like to avoid dogmatically defining narrow targets for "professional use" and what a notation app "should" be at the expense of others' needs. I like workflows of all kinds: high-brow orchestral works built from the score up; MIDI captures from a proficient guitarist (who doesn't know how to notate music) to score; improvised-as-we-go experimental pieces which later become scores involving multiple players on MIDI controllers; blended soundstage/VSTi recordings for film derived from a combination of Cubase and Dorico functionality, and more.

The elitist might say that some of these approaches are unprofessional. I don't care; I just want to make music.

I think the best way forward is inclusiveness and integration.
Last edited by ultradust on Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:47 am, edited 10 times in total.

Brian Roland
Member
Posts: 614
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 5:24 pm
Contact:

Re: What's wrong in the world of notation softwares ?

Post by Brian Roland » Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:07 am

RichardTownsend wrote:
Tue Jul 18, 2017 7:21 pm
Brian Roland wrote:
Tue Jul 18, 2017 5:10 pm

I suspect this sort of communication between the Steinberg teams is happening, but if I'm told otherwise, oh well...I'll be wrong (and a bit discouraged, and maybe even slightly more sympathetic to AVID, who I really don't like much after the way they treated their Sibelius people....but if all this is true, and this is the sort of thinking going on....maybe AVID had a valid point?).
Brian, don't be discouraged. I think it was the right decision to let the Dorico architecture be different from the Cubase one. building Dorico must have been architecturally very challenging, and to try to constrain it to the Cubase model might well have made it impossible to build properly. There are many potential models for future integration even given the differences between them. And if I understand Paul correctly, part of the difficulty is unavoidable, i.e. Dorico stores notes, and Cubase stores midi events, and there really is a many-to-many relationship between them.
It's not all on the Dorico team....the CuBase team can get new code and protocols as well.

Personally, I'll be OK with the ability to export and import easily between the apps if we can retain a decent percentage of the information. Naturally when importing a Dorcio score into CuBase, we mostly want the play-back data.....every little engraving and spacing rule for the score isn't that important. In contrast, when we start a project in Cubase then bring it into Dorico for polished engraving, the important thing is getting a solid point to put the fine details on the score. If percussion staves come in, and they are easy to get mapped out and making the same sounds over in Dorico, then that's a big part of challenge (For me, it's where I always spend the most time with bringing XML into any Scoring App).

Really, every time I look at the Play Tab, and see all the potential for that editor.....I see that with some time, there will be less and less need to pull things over into a tracking DAW. Give it tempo tracks like CuBase, and add CClanes, or note expression (double click the note in play mode and draw your stuff in....like we do in CuBase).......well.......there's just not much need to pull it over to the tracking DAW anymore unless you need to mix in audio or get into the advanced post-production stuff in Nuendo world.

Davetoria
New Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:15 pm
Contact:

Re: What's wrong in the world of notation softwares ?

Post by Davetoria » Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:22 am

I think you answered your own question when you began with '.... notation software....' then continued with why you're not happy with all the things the software can't do the way you want that isn't to do with notation!

The great answer here was if you want software to 'do XYZ' then get software XYZ.

As notation software Dorico is the best. When your needs move into DAW territory perhaps ship your notation out and open with your DAW of choice?

Post Reply

Return to “Dorico”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: djw and 6 guests