What's wrong in the world of notation softwares ?

Discussions about our next-generation scoring application, Dorico.
andgle
Member
Posts: 374
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

Brian Roland
Member
Posts: 650
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: 192
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: 374
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

FlowerPower
Junior Member
Posts: 192
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: 150
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: 650
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?

User avatar
MiloDC
New Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:34 pm
Contact:

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

Post by MiloDC » Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:03 am

Davetoria wrote:
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?
Limiter. (© ultradust)
-- Milo

rexwine
Junior Member
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:32 pm
Contact:

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

Post by rexwine » Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:57 am

Davetoria wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:22 am
When your needs move into DAW territory perhaps ship your notation out and open with your DAW of choice?
To me the issue doesn't need to be complicated.

Basically if Dorico could be told to leave a "blank space" wherever you want customize something. For instance...

At bar 49, you want something different. You should be able to put a picture of a duck, and the sound file of a quack. Dorico doesn't have a duck quack feature -- but blank space gives ability to use whatever visual and audio processed file you wish/

Basically Dorico plays everything from 1-48, 49 is yours, 50- end is Dorcio. The ultimate customization is a blank spaces, Dorico isn't involved, because for whatever reason you need something there that Dorico just can't do/

(yes, it should print a picture of the duck you picked for it in the engrave portion if that's what someone wants. )

Yes, I am serious. : ) It might sound riduckulous though.


OTOH, I hope Dorico is capable of doing lots of necessary musical requirements in the end without needing much extra.

Rob Tuley
Member
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 12:41 am

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

Post by Rob Tuley » Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:04 am

Dorico can do both those things already. You can import graphics images into your score. And if you have a VST instrument that can load any sound file (e.g. Plogue's Aria player, or the free cut-down version Sforzando) you can trigger any audio you like from a note in the score.

It might not be "elegant integration," but it works!

User avatar
islandmusicpro
Member
Posts: 592
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:41 pm
Location: Bonaire, Dutch Caribbean
Contact:

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

Post by islandmusicpro » Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:26 am

I just want to use Dorico's editor in Cubase as a score editor. That's it.

Benji
Cubase Pro 9.5, Windows 10 1709 x64
Synthogy Ivory 2, UAD2 Duo PCIe 9.1,
Superior Drummer 2.4.4, PLAY 5,
Kontakt 5.6.6, Ozone 7 Advanced
Sibelius 7.5.1, Dorico 1.2
i7 3770K Gigabyte Z77-UD5H 32GB
Allen & Heath ZED R16, UA LA610 Mk2, Neumann TLM49, Shure SM7B, Mackie HR624 Mk2
http://www.yourmusic.pro

Rob Tuley
Member
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 12:41 am

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

Post by Rob Tuley » Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:32 am

There's only problem with that: Daniel has said several times already that it's not what his team was set up to create.

User avatar
islandmusicpro
Member
Posts: 592
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:41 pm
Location: Bonaire, Dutch Caribbean
Contact:

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

Post by islandmusicpro » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:50 am

I can wait.
Cubase Pro 9.5, Windows 10 1709 x64
Synthogy Ivory 2, UAD2 Duo PCIe 9.1,
Superior Drummer 2.4.4, PLAY 5,
Kontakt 5.6.6, Ozone 7 Advanced
Sibelius 7.5.1, Dorico 1.2
i7 3770K Gigabyte Z77-UD5H 32GB
Allen & Heath ZED R16, UA LA610 Mk2, Neumann TLM49, Shure SM7B, Mackie HR624 Mk2
http://www.yourmusic.pro

LSalgueiro
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:51 am
Contact:

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

Post by LSalgueiro » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:31 am

Rob Tuley wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:04 am
Dorico can do both those things already. You can import graphics images into your score. And if you have a VST instrument that can load any sound file (e.g. Plogue's Aria player, or the free cut-down version Sforzando) you can trigger any audio you like from a note in the score.

It might not be "elegant integration," but it works!
It can also output MIDI, which you can feed into a DAW or into, say, Max, which makes the possibilities really endless (or open-ended at the very least).

I feel that if these scenarios were genuine needs of the users, the proponents would be able to come up with concrete requests instead of diffuse dream scenarios for a far-out future. Working with mixed music, I have a genuine need for these "blank spaces", as rexwine called them. I imagine media composers (I know I am, though I can manage like this) are still waiting for ReWire or perhaps some video integration. But that's wholly different from the types of solutions being thrown around.

Brian Roland
Member
Posts: 650
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 5:24 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Brian Roland » Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:55 pm

LSalgueiro wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:31 am
Rob Tuley wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:04 am
Dorico can do both those things already. You can import graphics images into your score. And if you have a VST instrument that can load any sound file (e.g. Plogue's Aria player, or the free cut-down version Sforzando) you can trigger any audio you like from a note in the score.

It might not be "elegant integration," but it works!
It can also output MIDI, which you can feed into a DAW or into, say, Max, which makes the possibilities really endless (or open-ended at the very least).

I feel that if these scenarios were genuine needs of the users, the proponents would be able to come up with concrete requests instead of diffuse dream scenarios for a far-out future. Working with mixed music, I have a genuine need for these "blank spaces", as rexwine called them. I imagine media composers (I know I am, though I can manage like this) are still waiting for ReWire or perhaps some video integration. But that's wholly different from the types of solutions being thrown around.
Until such time as Dorico gets his own app bridging features: You can get some degree of reliable/useful ReWire support from Dorico with the ReWire VST plugin. One can sync to Video with Dorico as the Master using VidPlay VST.

Dorico 'kind of' imports and exports MIDI and XML. Of course these abilities improve with each release, but it's a long way from being professional integration with CuBase. Expression maps from CuBase are quazi portable.......and we look forward to seeing that aspect of Dorico grow...and hopefully it can be a nearly automatic process for CuBase users to have 'all' their expression maps recognized in Dorico out of the box. In the short term?

You can import the MIDI performance data, or an XML score into Dorico from other apps, but you can't import an entire 'playback' setup yet. One still has to go into the play tab and rebuild all the instruments one by one, and set up each Plugin one by one. The same is true for XML imports.

Oh, and Dorico doesn't yet keep your CC data when 'importing' MIDI created in another app, so you've still got to go in and do a native expression map setup if you want interpretive playback from Dorico itself.

Percussion stave imports are a pain when working with XML in things like Sibelius, Finale, and MuseScore, and there really needs to be a way to quickly/easily move percussion staves and their mapping between Dorico and CuBase. Again, it makes sense that various spacing and engraving data can get lost when porting things across apps...but all of the kit and instrument mapping, score symbols/text, and post-interpretive performance data etc. should remain in tact. Upon importation, one should be able to hit play, and it 'sound the same' in both apps, with notes being on the right lines and spaces (and having the right general head-shape).

In the short term, having Dorico support CuBase "midiLoops" would do most of the job nicely. If a stave, group of staves, or an entire score could be exported as a Cubase "midiLoop", then they'd show up in Steinberg's Media Bay, all ready to be previewed or pulled into CuBase with everything ready to 'hit play' and hear the 'same thing one heard in Dorico'. If Dorico could import midiLoops, and keep all of the Continuous Controller, Note Expression, and/or Sysex data intact, then again, they'd come in with the VSTi and channel VST plugins all set up and ready to play.

Ideally, when working in world Steinberg, one could directly import a *.dorico file into CuBase (ready to play back, not necessarily with all the advanced Dorcio scoring data intact), and one could import compatible tracks from a CuBase project into Dorico and they'll be sonically identical (plugins all loaded and ready to go). It could rely on some sort of app that 'converts' the project before loading it.

If it is true that there's no way to host Dorico interfaces in CuBase (and no concrete plans for developing protocols and standards to make it possible), then it makes sense to have as close to 1 to 1 import/export routines as possible on the side. We do understand that CuBase's built in score editor isn't going to be able to do everything Dorico can, and vice verse. The point is just having a really good foundation at the point of import to work with....where everything 'sounds the same' in both apps (if running on the same system) until we go about tweaking it further.
Last edited by Brian Roland on Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.

ultradust
Junior Member
Posts: 150
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:37 am
Contact:

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

Post by ultradust » Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:34 pm

Rob Tuley wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:32 am
There's only problem with that: Daniel has said several times already that it's not what his team was set up to create.
Accurate.

There's a problem with that, though: The average person shopping for DAW / notation solutions who comes across Steinberg's suite will, rather naturally, expect a high degree of integration and will be disappointed by the lack thereof.

And don't get me wrong - I'm a huge fan of Dorico and Spreadbury & team. They're doing magnificent work.

Most of the people I know who use notation software (often professional arrangers, composers and musicians operating in orchestra and commercial jazz ensemble environments, in my case) don't have the time or inclination to pursue information about software developers' internal operating plans. They see "Steinberg" on a series of boxes and naturally expect, "Well, these should work really well together, since they're from the same company." They, quite rightly, expect similar integration as, say, Adobe's creative suite of tools. I remember my own surprise long ago when I first discovered that the "reasons" given for lack of shared elements between Cubase and WaveLab were: "Well, WaveLab is the work of one guy who's built it from the ground up. So don't go expecting him to refactor just because the Cubase team made a change." Sure, that's a legitimate explanation of the business reality. But in many cases, customers like myself see the discrepancies as a basic lack of collaborative planning and execution inside a company. Steinberg should probably be working harder to build a true production suite (DAW, mastering workstation, film scoring DAW, and now, notation engine) that work together seamlessly - with congruity between interfaces, terminology, workflow, etc. - rather than what could be described as a hodgepodge of independent, mostly non-integrated tools.

In other words, people see the "Steinberg" logo on the box and think, "The same company built all these products. They're probably going to work together seamlessly, or at least approximating that." They don't instinctively think, "This is a rubber-stamp logo that really represents a DAW company, a sole proprietor's pet mastering workstation project, and now, an independent notation team going in their own direction."

Most people in the market for these tools (based on known forum metrics, probably 95% or more) do not join forums like this to figure out why the interoperability isn't there. They're not reading Daniel Spreadbury's "Making Notes" because they don't have time and they don't care. Those of us who actually take the time to read and post are a very small minority. The rest (and indeed, many people who sign up here for the first time just to make this point) are just somewhat bewildered by how a single, unified Steinberg company could really not be planning full integration between Cubase and Dorico.

Are there valid business reasons as to why not? Absolutely.

Does it make sense to many people in the market looking for their next notation software? No.

It sounds weird that "Dorico is going in its own direction, and there are no plans for it to become the Cubase score editor. Cubase will continue with its own legacy score editor."

If Dorico is indeed going to be the best-in-class notation software, and if it's made by Steinberg, then yes, people generally want Dorico under the hood in Cubase. They want the simplicity that integration would provide. It just makes sense.

Whether various internal Steinberg teams or people were tasked with achieving such integration is irrelevant to this marketing issue. It's what people quite naturally would expect. That's why Steinberg will continue to encounter bewilderment and disappointment from prospects and customers who realize that full integration isn't in the works.
Last edited by ultradust on Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LSalgueiro
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:51 am
Contact:

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

Post by LSalgueiro » Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:11 pm

Integration between Adobe products? They got rid of the button to switch between apps ages ago. They now have dedicated software (AEM) to be able to manage a limited number of integrated features between some their softwares. If anything, Adobe is the case study on the advantages of having a suite of dedicated tools instead of one big offering: Photoshop only has the basic tools needed to handle vector graphics — if you want to do it properly, start in Illustrator. Illustrator can draw text, sure, but it would be mad to work on a layout on anything but InDesign. You might wireframe in InDesign, but get XD or Muse or DreamWeaver — three different softwares! — to design a site. Lightroom is a whole different thing compared to Photoshop. AfterEffects is not integrated in Premiere.

I'm sorry, but the "people don't research a certerpiece professional software" argument just doesn't cut it. Right by the Steinberg logo in the box, it says Advanced Music Notation System. And despite the brouhaha here, no one will search around for a DAW/Notation package because they don't really exist — that's precisely why everyone wants to push the team in that direction. Let the team start to flesh out their vision for the Play mode as they envisioned, after consulting top industry pros across the spectrum. See what complaints you might still have then.

ultradust
Junior Member
Posts: 150
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:37 am
Contact:

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

Post by ultradust » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:10 pm

Hi LSalgueiro -

Respectfully, I disagree with your assessment of Adobe's integration. The products are purposefully designed to interoperate and the continued aim is increasing integration.

The "switch" button is increasingly irrelevant because the workflows for managing shared assets and tools between applications are now more streamlined.
Photoshop only has the basic tools needed to handle vector graphics — if you want to do it properly, start in Illustrator.
I agree that if you are focused on vector graphics, then of course your Adobe tool of choice would be Illustrator. But Illustrator files can be opened and placed directly in Photoshop files, and vice-versa. They can even retain their vector and/or raster characteristics (no need to convert) throughout the design process using smart objects. This makes my point precisely: You don't have to export a generic version of a graphic and re-import it into the other Adobe app, losing the original quality. You can transition seamlessly between the two apps.

The analogy here would be: If you want to primarily work on notation, then you're right, you should start in Dorico (as a vector graphics designer would start in Illustrator). But Cubase should ideally be able to work with native Dorico files (as Photoshop can work with native Illustrator files and vice versa), without the hassle of having to export and import the Dorico files. Adobe has done excellent work in this regard.
Illustrator can draw text, sure, but it would be mad to work on a layout on anything but InDesign.
Again, I respectfully disagree. In fact, right now I'm doing some contract work with a company's marketing department where several layouts are designed in Photoshop and get placed into InDesign. (I'm not talking about just creating assets and then slicing and importing them into InDesign; I'm talking about full .psd layouts moved to InDesign using the placement tool.)
You might wireframe in InDesign, but get XD or Muse or DreamWeaver — three different softwares! — to design a site.
Yes, you're right. But I'm not arguing against having multiple tools in a suite. I'm arguing for tight integration between the tools. Further, the tools you mention here are really quite a different case from DAW/music notation.

Muse is a non-coder's quick-and-easy web design tool, while Dreamweaver is focused on someone who knows how to write their own HTML, CSS, .js, etc. Dreamweaver can open and edit the code output of Muse. But because Muse is designed to be a helper for non-coders, it's sort of implicitly understood that a Muse user (the target user) isn't probably going to want the vice-versa interoperability, as they're not likely to want to get under-the-hood to mess with code. And of course, with Muse's proprietary approach to delivering functionality via widgets, once that code is edited in Dreamweaver (or any other editor), it's now broken in Muse. That's not really an integration issue; it's a level-of-coding issue.

And XD isn't really comparable to Muse or Dreamweaver. XD is not really a web editor; it's more like a mini-Photoshop/Illustrator combo with a richly-featured prototyping toolset. Designers historically have started in Photoshop/Illustrator and then sent their work to developers to slice and code. XD replaces this function and adds proper prototyping features such as interactive components, client review, collaborative comments, etc. Yet, you can use the assets you create in XD in your other design applications - and Adobe is working on increasing integration where it makes sense.

The main difference I see here between these products you mention and the Steinberg suite is that the general domain that Muse, Dreamweaver and even XD operate in involves industry-standard formats (HTML, CSS, javascript, .jpgs, .pngs, etc.) that are readily usable across-the-board. People doing web/app design/development generally expect that they'll be using their (and their teams') own favorite combination of tools and workflows to deliver results, so getting at those results using a combo of Muse, Dreamweaver, XD, etc. is less about application integration and more about getting the assets you need to keep working. And with coders, they're generally prepared to code their own fixes anyway. In the case of Dorico and Cubase, the applications use proprietary formats that are opaque to all but the developers, and the options for export often result in significant work when imported into the other application. The end-user is often not a coder, but a musician/arranger/composer who doesn't want to code. They just want things to work. So when the Steinberg user has to stop down and solve technical problems migrating work between Dorico and Cubase, it can be a real challenge - and it's not as though they can just recode the Dorico file to make it work in Cubase in the same way someone can open an HTML file in Dreamweaver.
Lightroom is a whole different thing compared to Photoshop.
This one made me laugh! I assume you're joking?

Yes, of course, Lightroom is a whole different thing from Photoshop. If it wasn't, then Adobe wouldn't have bothered to make it.

But you can use Photoshop directly from Lightroom as its external editor. You can directly share color spaces between the two apps. You can share Camera Raw and send a raw file back-and-forth. You can directly insert raw files from Lightroom as a smart object, retaining the Lightroom project details. You can even set up Photoshop to add a flattened raster layer to each layered file so that layered files can be edited in Lightroom. Really, what more can you think of that you'd want to see integrated between the two apps??
AfterEffects is not integrated in Premiere.
Again, I respectfully disagree. I actually assert your statement here is entirely false and misleading. As someone who does commercial video editing work, I'm very glad for the extremely robust integration between these two apps. You can use entire After Effects compositions in Premiere, and you can send Premiere sequences to After Effects. These are clean, complete round-trip processes using Dynamic Link. You can edit Live text between the two apps. You can share masking and tracking functionality between the two apps for almost every effect. You can share many actual plugins between the two apps. I could go on and on... and then there's the integration between Adobe Animate and After Effects which can speed up motion graphics workflows tremendously.

After Effects and Premiere can directly utilize each others' native assets with no hassle. You can open one in the other's environment. If Cubase and Dorico worked together like After Effects and Premiere do, then my concerns would be resolved.

Your assertion on this one is false.
I'm sorry, but the "people don't research a certerpiece professional software" argument just doesn't cut it.
There are people like you and me who really care about this stuff and spend time looking at it. But most of the people I know shopping for notation software right now are just torn between Finale "because that's what everyone at the orchestra uses" and Sibelius "because I've heard it's even better than Finale from Jasper the viola player." And they've not heard of Dorico, but they're familiar with (and perhaps use) Cubase and so the next natural question is: "Oh, so can I open the scores I create in Dorico in Cubase and keep working there?" And the answer, for now, is not without export/import and workarounds. It's just confusing to people. You can disagree, but the reality is that it confuses a lot of people.
And despite the brouhaha here, no one will search around for a DAW/Notation package because they don't really exist — that's precisely why everyone wants to push the team in that direction.
Well, I searched around and landed on Cubase precisely because it is a DAW/notation package that does exist, and has since last century. Now that Dorico is a part of the Steinberg suite, I'd like to see the suite more tightly integrated.
Let the team start to flesh out their vision for the Play mode as they envisioned, after consulting top industry pros across the spectrum. See what complaints you might still have then.
Yes, I agree with you, and I'm not trying to stop the team. This is a forum discussion. I don't really have any complaints; I'm just laying out the case for why tighter integration is desired and expected.

LSalgueiro
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:51 am
Contact:

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

Post by LSalgueiro » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:29 pm

I committed the mistake of replying to the general tone of the thread instead of addressing you specifically and for that I apologize. If you start from the top, you'll see that most of the few users that chime into this kind of discussion generally want a type of integration that is wholly beside the point of Dorico, and some want to simply collapse the software into Cubase and that's the end of it. You thought it was just bewildering that I stated that Lightroom and Photoshop weren't the same. Well, of course it's bewildering — starting from the fact that it's a truism — but it's what some have suggested. I'm not against integration. Rather, I'm against the kind of people who do not see the need for After Effects to exist beyond Premiere, Lightroom beyond Photoshop, or Dorico beyond Cubase. That was the point of the simile: that there's an ecosystem as opposed to a one-size-fits-all solution.

ultradust
Junior Member
Posts: 150
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:37 am
Contact:

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

Post by ultradust » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:37 pm

Rather, I'm against the kind of people who do not see the need for After Effects to exist beyond Premiere, Lightroom beyond Photoshop, or Dorico beyond Cubase. That was the point of the simile: that there's an ecosystem as opposed to a one-size-fits-all solution.
Absolutely. I totally agree with this.

Thank you, LSalgueiro, for your kind and thoughtful words. Means a lot!

LSalgueiro
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:51 am
Contact:

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

Post by LSalgueiro » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:55 pm

ultradust wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:37 pm
Rather, I'm against the kind of people who do not see the need for After Effects to exist beyond Premiere, Lightroom beyond Photoshop, or Dorico beyond Cubase. That was the point of the simile: that there's an ecosystem as opposed to a one-size-fits-all solution.
Absolutely. I totally agree with this.

Thank you, LSalgueiro, for your kind and thoughtful words. Means a lot!
So does your feedback. Your professional work seems to be hung up, in part, with the skillful manipulation of specialized software, so you can acutely understand the inherent challenges better than most.

Rob Tuley
Member
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 12:41 am

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

Post by Rob Tuley » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:09 pm

ultradust wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:10 pm
The main difference I see here between these products you mention and the Steinberg suite is that the general domain that Muse, Dreamweaver and even XD operate in involves industry-standard formats (HTML, CSS, javascript, .jpgs, .pngs, etc.) that are readily usable across-the-board.
... and there lies one of the key issues. Nothing equivalent exists for music, except the centuries old technology of ink on paper.

MIDI is a pretty good (though not ideal) industry standard format for playing music on computers, but it's a terrible way to try to represent notation. That's part of the reason why DAWS produce terrible looking scores. But the "integrate notation into a DAW" faction don't know (or care?) about that inconvenient truth.

The only other kid on the block at present is MusicXML. IMO that hasn't matured into a stable format yet, and hasn't really decided what it is trying to capture. While its developers were employed by MakeMusic, it probably wasn't too surprising that it looked at the notation through a "Finale filter" which tended to ignore semantics and focus on the layout of the ink marks on the paper. As just one example, early versions of MusicXML didn't even have a way to say "this text is the title of the piece, that text is a block of lyrics printed after the score not under the notes". Both were just "Here is some text, it lives at this position on this page of the score, print it in this size and this font", etc. - which, by some strange coincidence, is how Finale represents the situation!

As a result, every app that wanted to import the semantics of MusicXML data had to figure out how every other app that exported it organized the data, and handle all their random, incompatible, and mostly undocumented work rounds of the holes in the standard. That solution just doesn't scale - you can make it work by brute force for 5 or 10 apps, but not for 50 or 100. And many apps (including Cubase!) generate MusicXML files which are full of violations of what little is well defined.

The MusicXML standard is now being managed by an independent standards body, but (from personal experience of how international standards get defined in other fields) the wheels of change turn very slowly indeed. IMO nothing significant is likely to emerge from the end of the process for at least a decade - and even then, just creating a high quality standard achieves nothing until all the app developers take seriously the task of implementing it correctly! If they just keep muddling along as they do right now, that might never happen...

TL;DR: Don't hold your breath!

Derrek
Senior Member
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2016 6:23 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Derrek » Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:27 am

I think the problem with musicXML is that it was decided what it should be, but then more sophisticated demands were placed upon it such that its legacy code has had to be contorted to try to fill its new role.
Dorico 1.1.10, Finale (v25.4), GPO, JABB3, GWI, CuBase newbie
Windows 10 (also Mac Sierra as alternate)
US English Keyboard

FlowerPower
Junior Member
Posts: 192
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2015 5:07 pm
Contact:

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

Post by FlowerPower » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:02 am

ultradust wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:58 am


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.
Brilliant post!
IMHO the whole thing about "DAW features in my notation software" must partially be based on some misunderstandings. First of all, I don't the see the functions I miss in Dorico as "DAW features", I just miss functions that will help my workflow; functions that are more related to 'music' than to 'DAWs' in the first place.

Saying no to DAW functions would equal for instance:
Saying no to the ability to add a movie file to the project, which would ai be very useful if you write music for picture, and b) would be a function that you probably even would notice existed if you don't need it. Or it could equal saying no to have better and more detailed control over your tempo. The important thing with tempo lists and tempo maps aren't that DAWs got them first, but that tempo is ex extremely part of music, and that lot of of music (not only classical music) beg for detailed tempo control simply to sound right. Saying no to DAW functions could also equal saying no to importing (or even recording) audio tracks, which would be useful in a lot of situations - and again: neither of these functions would hardly be noticeable for those who don't need them. I could post abut a dozen other "DAW functions" as well, but I have mentioned some of those earlier + again; forget that they are called 'DAW functions', DAWs just happened to get them because working with music often implies a need for such functions.
Increasing interoperability and flexibility will serve to increase the likelihood that a given Steinberg product will appeal to a wider range of people.
Absolutely. And for those who create (as opposed to only engrave) music on a computer, I'm pretty sure most of you/us will miss 'DAW functions' as soon as we want what we have created to not only look good, but also sound good. Proper CC automation if orchestral libraries is a good example of that - simply because most string libraries, for instance, sound vert unmusical if no alteration of vibrato and dynamics exist along with the MIDI notes.

Post Reply

Return to “Dorico”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chris Davey, Cor anglais 16, Craig F, Derrek, RobinHoffmann, spin, stefanorabaglia and 10 guests