MIDI support
I think it would be great if MuseScore got an added feature programmed to create and edit MIDI files more adequately and with more accuracy.
When you use MuseScore to create a MIDI file, the results are so-so. For instance, after I saved my Soler sonata remake as a MIDI file, the music played at a slower speed as a MIDI file than it did when played on MuseScore.
When MuseScore is used to edit a MIDI file, the results are rather glitchy. First of all, MuseScore treats every MIDI file as an import and messes things up. Second, I tried transposing a Scarlatti sonata from F major (the key in the MIDI) to F sharp major (the actual key). I managed to save the MIDI file with the correct key, but the music on the MIDI played kind of messy on some notes.
Time and time again I've heard from a few people here that MuseScore wasn't designed as a program that plays back music or a MIDI editor, but MIDI files are at least moderately popular, and given the potential of notating with MuseScore, I think it would serve as a great MIDI editor someday. Things can change. One of my various hobbies is developing computer games, and MuseScore seems like the right way to make music for them.
I suggest either that MuseScore gets MIDI creating/editing capabilities, or we come out with a separate program (MuseMIDI maybe, LOL?). And don't suggest that I switch to Anvil Studio, cause Anvil Studio sucks, at least for me...
Comments
The irony here is, MuseScore *started out* as a MIDI sequencer - MusE, which runs on Linux only. Long ago it was decided it would be better for the notation facility to be split off into its own program. I have no idea if it's even remotely possible to rejoin them, but I tend to doubt it. I also figure it was probably the right decision to have split them. Too much of what needs to be done in a notation program has no direct analogue in MIDI, and vice versa. There's probably a reason why not a single one of the other high end notation packages is worth a darn as a MIDI editor, and why not a single one of the high end MIDI editors is worth a darn as a notation program. 25 years ago, the state of the art in both fields was primitive enough that one could do both in the same program and not seem any worse than programs dedicated to one or the other, but I suspect those days are long gone.
That's not to say there isn't room for improvement in MuseScore's MIDI capabilities, of course. But I think it's fantasy to think it's ever going to come close to what a real MIDI sequencer can do.
In reply to The irony here is, MuseScore by Marc Sabatella
Thanks, Marc. I understand where you're coming from. And I agree with you that the developers here need to improve MuseScore's MIDI capabilities. I never knew much about MuseScore's early history. Now, let's look toward the future...
In reply to The irony here is, MuseScore by Marc Sabatella
Even though the release of MuseScore version 2.0 might be a little while away from now, I think it would be essential for that version to have more MIDI support and editing capabilities (i.e. editing the MIDI's tempo). What do you guys think of that?
In reply to Version 2.0 by Marcus2
Sorry, will not be done. Focus remains and has always been on typesetting scores. We want to do this faster, easier and with a beautifull result. Midi editing is not part of that.
In reply to Version 2.0 by Marcus2
Still it's possible to edit the "MIDI tempo", just create a tempo text, the resulting MIDI file should respect the tempo texts in your score. If it's not the case, it's a bug. Please give exact steps to reproduce it.
There are several free and open source "pure" MIDI editors. You could check Seq24, Sekaiju or Frinika
In reply to Still it's possible to edit by [DELETED] 5
@lasconic Thank you for your input on tempo. However, I don't think I'll use any of the MIDI editors you provided. Two of them look too complicated, and the other one (Sekaiju) is in Japanese. But I'll give your technique a try.
@Thomas I understand what you might have to go through, being one of the main developers of MuseScore. Giving MuseScore better MIDI editing capabilities may be a very complicated process. However, my suggestion still stands for now. If you think (or know) that programming such a feature is impossible, please let me know, and I'll drop this feature request topic.
In reply to Replies by Marcus2
It would help if you could explain in more detail how you would imagine MIDI editing features working, given that somehow it has to integrate with the main notation aspect of the program. That is, what specifically would you want to edit that can't be edited as notation, how would you imagine doing it, how would you imagine that affecting the notation, etc.
You specifically mention tempo, but as lasconic says, it should already be the case that the tempo of the score automatically sets the tempo of the MIDI file, and changes to the tempo within the score should similarly change the tempo within the MIDI file. There is also already the ability to make notes play earlier or later than the notation suggests (right click, note properties). I can certainly imagine opportunities for some additional features in this area, and I don't think it's a question of it being impossible, if the feature integrates well with the notation. It's more a question of priorities. People use MuseScore for it's notation capabilities. Any time spent on MIDI features to satisfy the needs of a few is time that could have been spent on the features that all the rest of the users would be wanting. Someday, once MuseScorw has all notation features it's users could possibly want, then I wouldn't be surprised if attention turns to adding a couple more well-integrated, notation-centric MDI editing features. But there are years worth of notation features yet to add.
In reply to It would help if you could by Marc Sabatella
For right now, all I really need help with is some bug fixes. But here is the basic reason I want MuseScore to have advanced MIDI editing features: I like the idea of using a program that reads and writes MIDI files by means of showing music in a MIDI file as notes on a score, which is quite similar to the way Anvil Studio works.
I was just thinking that if MuseScore had advanced MIDI editing capabilities, it may be superior to Anvil Studio, which can be a pain in the butt when notating music a certain way. For example, I struggled to recreate a sonata by Antonio Soler since Anvil automatically inserts rests in undesired areas on its score, although I know MuseScore shouldn't have to be exactly like Anvil Studio.
As far as MuseScore version 2.0 goes, I still see adding MIDI editing features as a possibility, and maybe we should wait a little longer until version 2 is released. If adding greater MIDI capabilities alone would take way too long, however, I might as well let it go for now. What say you guys?
In reply to Reflection by Marcus2
Feature freeze for 2.0 is coming up in a couple of weeks according to the schedule announced when 1.1 was released. So it seems that any significant new MIDI features are completely out of the question for 2.0. Absolutely no way would I want to see the very important 2.0 release delayed by several more months to implement some sort of pie-in-the-sky ideal MIDI editing capability that would be of no interest to most people who use MuseScore for its intended purpose.
I think you vastly underestimate the difference between what is representable in MIDI and what is representable in a score. They are just entirely different forms of representation. MIDI is not designed to store information about the appearance of a score. That's why programs that are MIDI editor first and foremost make lousy notation editors - MIDI just isn't suited for recording that sort of information. Any program that wants to take score editing seriously cannot use MIDI as its basic form of representation. So you're always going to be talking about "importing" from a MIDI file, and "exporting" when you're done. And information will be lost along the way. That's jut the nature of the thing.
As an analogy, imagine using Word as an audio editor for recordings of human speech. Sure, you can write speech-to-text and text-to-speech import/export filters that make this sort of possible, but no way is Word ever going to be the right tool for editing an audio file, because audio files just are not the right formats for representing printed documents, any more than MIDI is the right format for representing notation.
In reply to Feature freeze for 2.0 is by Marc Sabatella
I'm understanding more and more of where you're coming from. My only concern is, Anvil Studio can save projects as MIDI files and open them showing the notes on the score found the exact same way as they were when they were first put there. If Anvil can pull that one off, why can't another program?
I find your analogy to what Word does invalid. However, you've convinced me that we can't shoot for what I'm looking for with version 2.0. Maybe we could save that for version 3.0.
In reply to Sticking to my opinion by Marcus2
Does Anvil allow you to do the things MuseScore does? That is, can you fine tune the physical location of the notes on the page, independently from the timing? Can you place and physically fine tune the position of markings like accents, staccato dots, etc? How about chord symbols - what kind of support does Anvil offer for those? Can you change the size of notes? Change the beaming of eighth notes? Flip stems? Alter the appearance of barlines? Control how many measures appear on a system? Add text marking, complete with control over position and fonts? I suppose I might be Anvil might do one or two of those things somehow, but in general, notation is much, much, much more than just when a note starts, how loud it is, and when it stops. And it's all that other information that MIDI just isn't designed to handle. And this is what I mean when I say you are *vastly* underestimating the problem.
You say you find the analogy to Word "invalid", yet you don't give a single example of how it fails. It's actually quite apt - the technical issues involved are quite similar. MIDI is as inappropriate for representing printed notation as MP3 is for notating the printed word.
In reply to Does Anvil allow you to do by Marc Sabatella
Anvil Studio may not do symbols and other things, but what it does do is arrange notes on a score to form a MIDI file, and it appears exactly the same after you've saved the MIDI and opened it up again.
I've reconsidered the use of the word "invalid" based on your point. But my statement is unchanged. The reasons are simple to me.
1. You can save a MuseScore score as a MIDI file, but you can't save a Word document as an MP3 file.
2. You can edit a MIDI file using MuseScore, but you can't edit an MP3 using Word. You may be able to open an MP3 with Word, but if you change one iota of what you get in document form, and then change it back to an MP3 and open it up, you won't change how the sound is played, but likely get an error message.
3. There seems to be a connection between MuseScore and MIDI files, as they both deal with music, while there is absolutely no connection between Word and MP3s, since Word deals with words and symbols, and MP3 deals with sound.
But then again, that's just my take. You may be thinking differently than I am. In the meantime, I think increased connections between MuseScore and MIDIs ought to be up for grabs for when MuseScore 3.0 should come out.
In reply to Anvil and MuseScore/Word comparisons by Marcus2
You're missing the point. It's *because* Anvil cannot do those things I mentioned that it can use MIDI as a native format and not lose information. If Anvil did allow those things, it would not be able to store them in a MIDI file, because MIDI just doesn't support those kinds of operations. And thus it would have to convert to and from MIDI, and would lsoe information in both directions along the way just as MuseScore does. Get it now? It's precisely because a program does things that MIDI has no way to deal with that means MIDI can never be its native format, and it's the fact tht MIDI is not the native format that means information will be lost in both the import and export. I don't know how to explain this any more clearly. It has nothing do with a difference of "opinion" - MIDI is what it is, and is not what it is not.
As for the Word analogy I explicitly said i was talking about how it would be *if* you had import/eport filters for MP3. True, Word doesn't ship with them. But they do exist. There are any number of text-to-speech conversion programs out there, and same with speech-to-text. You lose a ton of information along the way, of course, and that's exactly the point. Just because it is possible to convert audio sound to text and then back again with some degree of success doesn't mean a word processor is ever going to be the best program for editing an audio file, Words start off as sounds, just as music does. The fact that either can also be converted into visible symbols and back again is a wonderful invention of Western culture, but there is no getting around the fact that information is lost along the way in both directions - and this is just as true for MIDI<->notation as it is for text<->speech.
In reply to You're missing the point. by Marc Sabatella
I'm sorry for missing the point. However, I do think that MuseScore's MIDI support can become at least a LITTLE better. But I beg you, please don't waste my time anymore, since I have other matters here to attend to. I guess I'll just shoot for better MIDI support to come for version 3.0, if not, 4.0, and so on. Forgive me if my tone is rude, because I really don't mean it that way. Cheers. :)
In reply to A little more, I might add by Marcus2
I agree, it can be a *little* better. That's why I keep asking you to provide *specific* suggestions for features that could conceivably work given the fact that MuseScore would not be editing the MIDI file directly, but instead be importing MIDI into its own native format, then exporting from its own native format to MIDI. That's the basic technical hurdle any suggestion has to clear, and it's not a question of the developers being stubborn - it's a basic technical constraint imposed by the fact that MuseScore's native format is not MIDI or anything resembling it. Again, Anvil is completely different because it does *not* import and export to its internal format that is based on notation; it works with the MIDI directly. That's what makes it possible to do what it does, but it's also what prevents it from doing what MuseScore does.
And I fail to see how my explaining the technical issues to you constitutes "wasting your time". No one is forcing you to learn if you don't want to.
In reply to I agree, it can be a *little* by Marc Sabatella
I was using the term "wasting my time" to refer to the fact that this discussion has been going on longer than was necessary. Whenever a new message that I fail to understand is posted, I feel the urge to respond and defend my viewpoints and perceptions. If you want specific suggestions, I'll give them to you. Simple as that. I hope you are well, and have a nice day! (I mean it)
In reply to On "wasting my time" by Marcus2
Folks,
I'm a newbie to MuseScore but I'm searching for a place to see if a feature request has been added and this is as close as I've come. Please direct me where appropriate. I am currently using Musescore to create and export MIDI files which I then load into Anvil Studio to use its CopyMe feature. Anvil CopyMe compares notes that are being played on a MIDI keyboard in my case to the notes in a particular place in a song and sort of marches along in the score as the correct notes are being played. I was using Anvil Studio exclusively but reached the point where the songs/scores became too complicated for Anvil's notation editor. I understand MuseScore can take MIDI input for the purposes of notation entry but I've not heard that it can 'march along' comparing MIDI input to the notes in the score a la Anvil CopyMe. I understand that MuseScore is fundamentally about score notation editing and so this is going beyond that charter. But Anvil doesn't adequately display the full-page, multi-track-at-once score as it appears in MuseScore - which is a nice terrific representation of the score as it appears on the music sheet. So I would like a MuseScore 'CopyMe' feature if that were possible.
My motivation for all this is I use this as a tool for my son who is learning piano. As you can probably tell, I know very little about music so it's been helpful to have the computer offer that immediate right/not right feedback. I cannot tell if the notes are correct or incorrect and so he was playing for a week making errors. His teacher found his progress this summer remarkable once I started using Anvil. If I could get a 2-page view of the music as it appears when you put the music sheets up to play, I'd put a computer display of MuseScore in place of the music sheets and have him play from that, so he can get immediate feedback that the software has stopped marching along (and therefore he's made a mistake he needs to correct). And ideally it would keep track of how many times through he's played so I could walk up at the end and see he's played his requisite 10 times through and so he's done practicing that song that day. Then I don't need to be there to monitor the computer as he's playing. As my son progresses, I would like the software to keep pace with that and provide some sort of feedback after the fact saying how well the piece was played, errors made, how the timing was off in spots, etc. I know this is way beyond what MuseScore was ever intended to do, I'm just offering my wish list of what would help me. I am hopeful a 'CopyMe' capability is possible so if you could address that or send me where appropriate, I'd appreciate it.
Thanks so much,
Robert and son Elliot
In reply to I agree, it can be a *little* by Marc Sabatella
i've just read this forum with interest and note that the notation versus sequencer dichotomy remains some 25 years after i bought my first Roland keyboard and computer and needed music software. what i liked to do back then was to input piano music on 2 separate channels for right and left hand then mute each on playback so my kids could play along practicing one hand at a time. this worked well for me as well for more complicated piano music practice. i also liked to input orchestral scores,all on separate channels so i could play back one or several parts at a time to change sounds to suit my tastes. i even added drum parts to mozart and changed tempo for fun. The first software i used was called Ballade, now defunct and a couple others i can't recall. I used Cakewalk when it first came out but as a trained pianist, i really worked best reading music notation, not piano rolls or other ways of looking at music. I ended up with Musicator as a good combination of notation/sequencer compromise. However, it got too expensive upgrading every year or so as new features were added &/or i upgraded my computers and Windows OS. Also, i just stopped doing this as a hobby. But i now have revived my interest in computers and music. I recently joined an adult band after teaching myself how to play clarinet. i find that it's difficult to participate as a beginner with once a week band practice and wanted to practice with the entire score at home. also, other beginner bandmates want to hear what the whole song sounds like so i was looking for modern software that i could use to input the scores to record for the band members and to play along at home as practice and stumbled on your great software but it has it's limitations as discussed. I can make my score and playback but i can't silence my part for playalong practice or slow down the tempo to practice the fast 16th note runs or change the instrument sounds to hear how different parts sound with different instruments. Years ago Finale was hard to use and too complicated and expensive to buy and it doesn't seem to have changed much. i guess i'm trying to understand what your aim is in developing this particular software. for now, it will help me in my band pursuits but it's still not quite all i'm looking for. you might have a look at Musicator and Ballade if you can find copies. i have old copies for my old 386 computer if you're interested' including manuals. I'm sure you're familiar with the pure sequencers. anyways, keep up the good work with your software. Thanks.
In reply to Midi support by spelesho
You can do both of these things already in MuseScore 1.1
Playback tempo is controlled from the Playback window which is accessed from the Display menu or by pressing F11 - just move the slider marked Tmp up or down to control Tempo in bpm - this is always based on crotchets (quarter notes) per minute so you may need to doa little maths if you're using a compound time signature.
Control over part volume, part muting and other playback characteristics is achieved from the Mixer window, again to be found on the Display menu or by pressing F10. A list of the instruments in your score will be displayed, together with the ability to control overall part volume, muting, pan position, reverb and chorus.
HTH
Michael
In reply to Midi support by spelesho
As Michael says, you can already mute parts and change tempo, very easily. Also change instrumemts. It's all describe in the Handbook. As for the aim of MuseScore, that's also easy - to produce great-looking scores.
In reply to The irony here is, MuseScore by Marc Sabatella
If you've ever actually used Finale, and I mean dig deep down into the software. I remember back on Finale 2000a where the pdf instruction manual was something like 1500 pages, if you dug deep deep down you realized quickly that it's was midi capabilities while not in sequencer format could actually rival the performance/playback of many good midi sequencers. Now it's 2012, 12 years is long enough that we need something in the music open source music world with those capabilities. I'm not saying as a Linux user I don't appreciate the strides Musescore has made in the Finale world, but don't go making comments about how good music notation software doesn't need to have advanced midi capabilities until you've really dug into Finale and come out knowing what really good Music Notation software could do even more than a decade ago.
P.S. I apologize this is comment is repeated somewhere near the bottom of the thread. It was really meant to be a reply the post above.
P.P.S. I also apologize if I'm coming across as a whining prick saying "Why can't open source and FREE be as good as FINALE THE $600 NOTATION program. I'm really not trying to come off this way. I just don't like when people make comments about what software should or shouldn't be thereby limiting ideas and creativity in what could go in that software. I'm a heavy believer that as a community of open source users, if we do not limit ourselves there is no reason why our software couldn't be as good if not better than their commercial counterparts. We need to ban together and make software worth using, and not say "it's a waste of time to incorporate this or that...".
The one thing that people seem ot be ignoring in this thread is that MIDI is a communications protocol for musical instruments and is designed purely with performance in mind.
It just isn't geared up to communicate with score writing software like MuseScore, although MuseScore can turn it's playback data into MIDI messages.
This is why it is necessary to have a scoring application and a MIDI sequencer, and if one tries to become the other you end up with a compromise that nobody wants!
I firmly believe that MuseScore should continue to stay away from further MIDI compatibility. It output's MIDI files which can then be manipulated by a sequencer into a better sounding performance.
The only further MIDI implementation I would like to see is the ability for MuseScore to playback on the MIDI Out port and not just the internal SoundFont.
Regards
Michael
In reply to MIDI is a communications protocol by ChurchOrganist
Hey Michael,
See second paragraph at http://musescore.org/en/node/5163#comment-43304
In reply to drumstick by Thomas
Maybe in MuseScore 3 then?
regards
Michael
OK, I have read the discussion about the difference between MIDI and notation editors but would like to put in just one plug for future versions.
I sing in a choir that distributes MIDI files for the music we are learning, obtained from various web sources. If we could find music-XML files for them we would. With a little massaging of style options, MuseScore does a magic job for many MIDI files in displaying the score complete with lyrics to look pretty much identical to the printed music. The blue-line karaoke feature is an enormous help in learning the tune, words and rhythm for unfamiliar latiin phrases.
The first plea is for some kind of place marker to facilitate repetitive playback from a point on the score without repeatedly scrabbling with the mouse to drag the display back to the start of a phrase. In doing that I often inadvertently pull a note out of place, the repair of which breaks my concentration on the music.
My main plea however is for some control over the representation of extended notes. Printed music invariably represents these with dotted notes but MuseScore instead uses a collection of slurred and barred notes to do so. Could these alternative styles be selected as an option, perhaps for any score not just for MIDI imports?
Another druther is for a more versatile facility to change the order of voices on a stave. Some of our files come with a bizarre and distracting arrangement of instrumental accompaniment lines between the SATB voices.
Oh, and one more thing.. is there a problem in speeding up the lyrics editor's insertion of continuation dashes? In comparison with other editing operations in MuseScore, this process is as slow as a wet week !
I recognise that such requests are to further gild an already gleaming lily. MuseScore is a fantastic piece of work.
In reply to MIDI imports by Murray Scott
I like the suggestion for setting a start point for repeated playback. Not sure, but I think the playback controls in 2.0 may be moving in this direction a bit. I also agree there is plenty of room for improvement in the representation of rhythm on import.
But I don't understand what you mean about entering dashes in lyrics. What's slow about typing the hyphen character? Or are you saying that on your system, there is some sort of delay after you type the hyphen? If so, does this only happen with scores imported from MIDI? I haven't noticed typing hyphens to be slower than typing other characters. Also, is there something specific about the existing facility for changing the order of staves (the Instruments dialog) you'd like to see improved? It seems pretty straightforward to me. I guess drag and drop rather than up/down buttons might be nice, but that seems lokely to be a lot of work for a very small improvement in usability.
In reply to MIDI imports by Murray Scott
" I often inadvertently pull a note out of place, the repair of which breaks my concentration on the music."
I do that too. I find it's fastest and safest to drop it way out of place, and just hit "Undo".
-- J.S.
While I can easily get and agree with the many reasons why MuseScore has not to grow into a MIDI editor, I find a bit frustrating how MuseScore imports data from MIDI files and translates them into musical notation. The results of that process is really poor, unless the MIDI file has been edited exactly in order to make a proper translation, that is avoiding any note overlap and assuring that each note on/off is perfectly aligned to the quantization grid. I mean, you can't get a standard GM file of the many one can find on the net and try a simple import with MuseScore, unless you like semi-random and virtually unusable results. That probably happens for MuseScore applies a literal translation of MIDI data, that's to say, it applies no "roundings". I hope one day MuseScore will have some sort of "MIDI interpreter" that will try an automatic adaptation of the little (often intentional) "imperfection" that a MIDI file can have, such as little overlappings and exceptions to the quantization grid.
P.S. I hope my words are clear as needed, as English is not my mother tongue and I'm a self-taught English writer.
In reply to MIDI import by Aldo
FWIW my experience of MIDI import into Finale has been fraught with problems - unless you've prepared the MIDI file yourself beforehand you have to be prepared for an immense amount of cleaning up.
So it seems that MIDI files and notation software just don't get on.
Not surprising as the best MIDI files are recorded performances, and no amount of quantisation can interpret those correctly.
In reply to FWIW my experience of MIDI by ChurchOrganist
I agree with you -- "sequenced" MIDI files (that is perfectly quantised ones) are cold as ice and sound heavily "fictitious". To avoid such an effect, many musicians are used to introducing nuances in their quantisation patterns in order to make the resulting playback more "human" and more "real". Some sequencing softwares can be set to introduce some sort of automated imperfections, too (as an example, Logic does)! As regards human feel, the best results come from performing and recording one's music in real-time. While a "live" recording is often completely unrelated to the quantisation grid, and as such hardly analyzable by any software, a little amount of imperfection can be interpreted via a rounding mechanism that allows some form of automatic quantization. Anyway, though I was "complaining" for the lack of such a feature in MuseScore, the problem is easily solvable by just editing the MIDI file first with a specific software, THEN importing it into MuseScore. And that's exactly what I do.
In reply to FWIW my experience of MIDI by ChurchOrganist
I have written reviews on other sites about this topic -- importing MIDI files into Notation software.
Sibelius just flat out cannot be used for this purpose. It will not allow you to move notes to the left and right as you would with a word processor. Furthermore, if you insert a new note into the score, Sibelius will change the values of all the surrounding notes so that the measure will add up to "1" and then arbitrarily change the surrounding notes' values, i.e. 1/8th notes become 1/16th notes in keeping with their "must add up to 1 philosophy".
Finale' does allow you to move notes around like a word processor. I knew many years ago that Finale' was supposedly a more difficult program to use (I think it has gotten much better and easier now), and so therefore I purchased Sibelius. But after v.2 and knowing the inherant impossibility of editing MIDI files, I refused to upgrade Sibelius ever again (currently v.7) because Sibelius told me they would never change their engine which was developed to make each measure add up to a full count of 1. So, goodbye to Sibelius as far as I was concerned.
Another musician, reading what I had about this topic on another site, pointed me here. So I have just downloaded MuseScore and will give it a try. I'll come back and post my comments later regarding its good/bad for this topic.
All in all, though, the user on here named Marcus2 is correct in his ideas and wish list. There are thousands and thousands of musicians who don't even know how to read music, but know how to write a song by tapping it out on a keyboard. Thus, the need to import their MIDI recording into a professional notation software to do the final editing is a must.
In reply to Importing MIDI by Toddskins
then they should quantize everything in their MIDI recorder, n'est ce pas?
That should be quite simple as their device must have this capability.
Regards,
In reply to Importing MIDI by Toddskins
The fact that MuseScore, like Sibelius, keeps your measure correct at ll times, *in no way* reduces its usefulness. You just need to learn to edit with that in mind. It's not that hard a concept, and takes but a few days to get used to if you're accustomed to the Finale method., which suffers it's own problems (because notes move, they become notated incorrectly - you cant have a half note on the and of 2, for instance). Whether the music to be edited came from MIDI or elsewhere is immaterial - it's just a question of learning to use the editing features provided, rather than expecting them to work like another program. None of this has anything to do with MIDI. The main MIDI issues have to to do with how well MuseScore does at quantizing the input to reduce the amount of editing that is needed in the first place. And that's definitely an area where MuseScore has plenty of room for improvement, should this ever become a high enough priority.
In reply to The fact that MuseScore, like by Marc Sabatella
What are you even talking about?
If you two think that Quantizing a song while recording will eliminate the problems that countless people have described, you've obviously never used quantizing. Every musician under the sun who has a DAW (digital audio workstation) or a hardware sequencer built-in to their keyboards, has at some time or another experimented with the Quantize feature and hated its results. They have gone on the record saying that quantizing always messes up a song. Always. I've been reading keyboardists on music websites for 15 years. Nobody thinks that quantizing works. The original recording loses all of its feel, and you inevitably click the Undo button.
Getting my head around the concept of how software works sounds demeaning. Do you think I don't understand how these software programs work? If you are refering to my original post about the problems associated with Sibelius and importing a MIDI file, then you either did not read it, or you did not understand the facts as they were presented. It's not open to debate. I was stating the fact that one is unable to use Sibelius to clean up a MIDI compositional recording.
If your position is that you can achieve anything with any software, simply by getting used to how that software works, well then your opinion has no value. People come into these forums to express a better way of doing something, finding a more efficient method, attempting to be more productive. If we are not concerned with flaws, inefficiencies, design problems, etc., then there is no purpose for debate and trying to do a job better. We would all simply content ourselves with "Hey, just learn the software as it is, and you'll be able to get the job done eventually," regardless of how much frustration you have to go through, and the extra weeks of time spent using a bad tool.
The original poster was stating that his wish was for an improvement in MuseScore for the purpose of editing MIDI files. That's what this whole thread is supposed to be about. Not on how to be a perfect performer so that your recorded MIDI file is perfect to begin with, or how to use Quantize to perfect the song file (which never works), thus whatever Notation software you use when importing that file will have absolutely no problems at all (because the Notation software does not know how to provide for editing of music scores with lots of playing mistakes).
That is indeed the wish. To have a good notation program that allows you to clean up and edit an imported MIDI file, whatever its condition.
Your argument is like "there's no need for security code error messages in a software program, if people would simply just type the correct password to begin with."
In reply to ??? by Toddskins
Regards,
In reply to ??? by Toddskins
The point of quantizing in a notation program has nothing to do with improving playback; indeed, as you've observed, it often has the opposite effect. The point is to produce more readable *notation* from a MIDI file, with less need for cleanup. How it affects the playback is irrelevant for this purpose, because we're not talking aout then playing back the results - just printing them. For playback, you'd use the unquantized original. But quantizing on input absolutely can produce a more readable score with less need for cleanup. And MuseScore already quantizes on import - giving you the choice between eighth versus sixteenth etc as the shortest note value. But it's not a very sophisticated quantization, which iswhy so much cleanup is needed in so many cases.
And yes, editing after the fact is still likely to be necessary even with more sophisticated input quantization, but again, whether one uses a Finale-like or Sibelius-like series of keystrokes is immaterial - the job can be done either way, with no more work on average either way. Actually, as someone who has used both methods extensively, I'd say the Sibelius-like method employed by MuseScore is slightly *less* work on average than the Finale-like method once one has become accustomed to both. So I don't know what you are talking when you say that Sibelius cannot clean up a MIDI file. Of course it can, if you understand how to use it. Sorry if that sounds condescending, but stating that it can't be done when many peolple have been doing so effectively for years seems quite bizarre to me.
And in any case, this also has nothing to do with what the OP was talking about - he was not talking about Sibelius versus Finale styles of notation editing, but rather, direct MIDI editing. It also turns out, as I recall, that some of the problems he described turned out to be the result of a simple misunderstanding that was cleared up in another thread.
In reply to The point of quantizing in a by Marc Sabatella
The methods needed to get satisfactory import of "free tempo" midi files were discussed at great length a long time ago. See the thread at http://musescore.org/en/node/3195 (The relevent part is a long way down the thread)
In reply to The methods needed to get by BarrieB
BarrieB,
Thanks for your research skill and bringing that thread to my attention. I just read it and thought your suggestions to Steve were interesting, and possibly helpful.
Since you seem to have an understanding of the issues that were being presented, would your answer to Steve differ in any way since that was last written 1½ years ago? Have any of the notation programs made improvements for the specific issue that Steve (and I) have complained about, in the last year?
I have not yet begun fidgeting with MuseScore. Thanks for your time, both already written and what I hope to hear from you.
In reply to BarrieB, Thanks for your by Toddskins
Notation Composer has improved with the feature for doing this called "Rebar", see my reply in the other Thread.
One bad thing about Notation Composer is that sadly its author, Mark Walsen, died recently and development on the programme is essentialy pretty much at a standstill at the moment. They are looking for a new programmer with the required skill and desire to take the project over.
In reply to The point of quantizing in a by Marc Sabatella
Marc,
I stand corrected. I did misunderstand your speaking about the "use" for quantizing. Although my hunch tells me that that will not help matters, I do now see why you wrote what you wrote.
For the most part, what I (and another guy named Steve) have been wanting, was a notation software that would allow you to easily clean up a MIDI file. So while all of the notation software packages can import a MIDI file, and then turn that into a score, and then too, maybe Quantizing before importing will help some more, still, the main issue is the ability to freely edit and clean up the file after it has been imported.
The guy named Steve (in the other thread) was saying the same thing about how he would like to move not only notes around with ease, but also the bar lines. He was tackling the issue from a wish list perspective, even more than I have written about.
In any case, thanks for correcting my misunderstanding.
In reply to Marc, I stand corrected. I by Toddskins
A cleanup *before* quantizing would be the easy way for the end user. It could be a standalone program that would give you a GUI "rubber piano roll" view. You could click in bar lines, set fixed points, and stretch and squash between fixed points. Then pull the output of that into your notation program.
-- J.S.
In reply to Marc, I stand corrected. I by Toddskins
As i mentioned elsewhere, there are really several different topics being discussed here, which is bound to produce confusion and frustration as people misunderstand each other. So hopefully, there are no hard feelings here.
To be specific, here are some of the different topics I see being discussed in these threads:
1. Better default handling of MIDI import - producing better notation right out of the box for pieces recorded in tempo but not already quantized perfectly. This is what I am saying more sophisticated input quantization can help with.
2. In addition to but totally separate from the above, a facility to allow free tempo MIDI performances to be rendered using some sort of implied beat. That hadn't really come up in this thread until just now, but is indeed an interesting topic unto itself, and the corss-referenced thread does provide food for thought.
3. Use of MIDI editing within MuseScore not to achieve better notation but to achive better playback from within MuseScore. This is a topic that many people think of when the topic of MIDI comes up, but I gather this is not your interest.
4. Improved ability to clean up an imported MIDI file for the purposes of producing readable notation. This is, I gather, your primary concern here. But I note it is *not* the primary concern of the OP, who was concerned not about cleaned up notation as an end product, but rather, about exporting a new MIDI file as the end product. That is, number 4 below.
5. Improving the ability to edit scores in MuseScore with the goal of producing of seamlessly importing a MIDI file, editing it, and exporting it as MIDI as if MIDI were in fact the native format of MuseScore. This is actually the primary original topic of this thread, although that only became clear through a number of other threads. He basically wanted to use MuseScore as a plugin MIDI editor from within a sequencer, with that other program sending MuseScore a MIDI file, editing it in some way, then saving right backto that same MIDI file for further use on the sequencer. It's an interesting application, but rather different in scope.
6. Totally unrelated to the subject of MIDI, implementing a Finale-like mode of editing for those uncomfortable with the Sibelius-like method currently employed. While of course this could be used for Scores that came from MIDI, this mode would be equally useful for scores that didn't come from MIDI.
None of these really have anything to do with the other - solutions proposed for one don't with any of the others. Which makes these discussions difficult, because we're all talking about different things at different times. In particular, you brought #6 as if it were the same as # 4 or #5, but they really are three different topics. And while you are assuming that #6 is necessary to address #4, this is something I am specifically questioning.
And for the record, I'm not one of the programmers - just somone who understands a bit about MuseScore and tries to help out where he can. Same with almost everyone else in this discussion.
In reply to As i mentioned elsewhere, by Marc Sabatella
I too am not one of the programmers, but try to help out when I can.
I am so grateful for the hard work done on this program, even all the things that I will never use. This program has been a godsend to me, and I enjoy the community very much. I constantly have to try not to just make encouraging comments, and try to keep the comments focused on issues.
Regards,
In reply to As i mentioned elsewhere, by Marc Sabatella
thanks for breaking this down into the separate topics. I do have one request to clarify #6....
"... implementing a Finale-like mode of editing for those uncomfortable with the Sibelius-like method currently employed..."
Never having used either of these software packages, I'm not sure I know what is implied by a Finale-like or Sibelius-like editing mode? Is there a more behavior-based way to describe these modes?
In reply to thanks for breaking this down by mtherieau
The relevant difference is in what happens when you edit existing notes. In a Finale-like method, if you change the duration of a note t make it longer or shorter, the other notes in the measure are moved later or earlier to make room. Same for inserting or deleting a note - other notes are moved earIier or later. In a Sibelius-like, other notes always stay right where they are, except to the extent that lengthening a note steals from the next note. When I describe it like this, the Sibelius method sounds a lot more logical, and it does work extremely well, but the Finale method does more resemble how, for instance, a text editor works, where inserting characters moves the following characters over to the right to make room, and deleting them moves them to the left to close up the space. In the Sibelius method., if you want notes to move, you cut and paste them.
In reply to MIDI import by Aldo
Xerox Mockingbird (1980)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p45NXD_iPPI
Enjoy ;)
In reply to On the topic of midi import by Thomas
IF it was 1980 that was before MIDI.
The first MIDI specification didn't appear until 1981
While Marc's description is accurate, his opinion that Sibelius' is more logical is highly disputable. In fact, Sibelius' religious adherence to its methodology is why I will not upgrade anymore. It proves completely untenable for the type of work I was describing earlier. Finale' gives you 3 methods to choose from when editing notes and chords. Sibelius only the one.
In reply to While Marc's description is by Toddskins
What I actually said is, "When I describe it like this, the Sibelius method sounds a lot more logical". That's a bit different from saying it *is* more logical as a pure statement of fact. The point was, there are ways of looking at it in which the Snelius way feels more natural, and ways of looking at it in which the Finale way feels more natural. And FWIW, I would also like to see an option for an "insert mode" that worked more like Finale's input methods. This has come up before on other threads (not relating to MIDI), and there has been brainstorming over how such a mode might look. No idea if there is any reasonable chance of seeing this any time soon, but I don't argue that more options is better.
But I'd be interested in seeing a specific example - a "before" passage showing what the initial MIDI import might look like, and an "after" passage showing results you wish to obtain - in which Sibelius or MuseScore is "completely untenable". To my thinking, a system in which editing a note doesn't mess up other notes is almost always better for editing MIDI performances. The situations in which the Finale approach has advantages for me tend to be situations where I am entering the notes manually and made a simple typo, so a whole series of notes are entered at the wrong time position because of one wrong note.
In reply to What I actually said is, by Marc Sabatella
You just outlined the problem - you made a mistake (a typo) in Finale' and did not like the results of your mistake. You could easily have clicked the "Undo", yes?
I have never used Finale', and maybe its learning curve is steep. I don't know. But here is a page from Finale's online user manual that addresses this particular (for me, critical) issue. And I guess there are now 4 options, and not 3 as I had stated earlier. See the link with an illustration on it: http://www.finalemusic.com/usermanuals/finale2011win/content/finale/Tut…
So if you love Sibelius' way of editing (or inserting notes and rests), Finale' has that covered, plus the extra ways, too.
In reply to You said it. by Toddskins
I'm afraid I still don't understand the specific case you think would be difficult, and the Finale manual page doesn't really clarify that for me. You seem to be implying that this page suggests that Finale also provies the Sibelius-like method, but it doesn't. It still displaces all subsequent notes in the measure every time tou make a change to one note, which I find awkward for most editing other than correction of typos. And the reason I mentioned the correction of typos is to point out that this is *not* something that comes up often when starting from MIDI, but only when entering a score from scratch. The types of errors you need to correct when starting from MIDI tend to be of a different nature - and the fact that MuseSocre doesn't screw up other notes when you fix one ends up being a good thing in my experience.
So again, I'd love to see an example of something you think would be difficult to achieve in MuseScore - ideally somethng that would be likely to come up in MIDI import. Not that I'm the one who needs convincing, but if I understood better what the perceived problem was, I could either show how you would actually perform the edit, or gain a better idea of how to propose improvements to address whatever the problems are.
In reply to I'm afraid I still don't by Marc Sabatella
To me, the MuseScore/Sibelius way of doing it is sort of like shopping in a store where a nerdy clerk follows you everywhere, making exact change every time you put an item in the basket. The Finale approach is more like checking out when you're done with the measure, and finding out then if you're long or short. I don't think it needs such a long list of options. It could just refuse to let you leave the measure until you go back and fix it.
-- J.S.
In reply to To me, the MuseScore/Sibelius by John Sprung
I think there is more to it than that, though - the difference goes deeper. People have this perception that the Finale method means you're only changing one note at a time, since you don't see any new rests appearing or time being stolen from the next note. But I don't see it that way at all. with Finale, shortening one note actually changes every subsequent note in the measure - immediately, not just when you "checkout" - because their start times have all changed. Visually, it appears they just moved to the left or right, so we have this illusion that they didn't change, but they really did. If you make the one note change and then check out, Finale will add a rest to the *end* of the measure, or steal time from the *last* note of the measure, meaning every single other note in the measure will have shifted its time position, even though you never touched them. Visually, it *looks* like nothing much changed - just the note you edited and then the last note of the measure - but on playback, you discover *all* notes have shifted. That's the part I see as somehow illogical in the Finale approach - changing one note really affects everything, whereas in Sibelius & MuseScore, changing one note affects the minimum number of notes. it just *looks* like more has changed, visually.
It's making that mental shift from thinking about music notation as something that is purely visual to thinking about the actual sounds it represents that is, I think, the key to making the adjustment from the Finale to the Sibelius/MuseScore note entry/editing method.
But again, this really has nothing to do with MIDI per se. These two different ways of thinking about editing are just as relevant for music entered by hand. And there are plenty of other threads that have beaten this particular horse over the years. I don't think the horse is dead yet, though - I've said before, I'm not opposed to seeing a Finale-style editing mode added as an option.
The only relevance I see of any of this to this thread - a thread about MIDI - would be if someone produces an actual example of a passage rendered from MIDI for which the Sibelius-like method is clearly inferior to the Finale-like method. Todd called this "critical", but so far, I am unable to see any concrete example of it being anything other than six of one, half dozen of the other, where one's personal preference comes down to whether you think about notation purely visually (a la Finale) or musically (a la Sibelius). Either way, though, my experience with both tells me the actual number of keystrokes/clicks required is going to be about the same on average.
In reply to To me, the MuseScore/Sibelius by John Sprung
There's one really relevant feature that one has to take into account when evaluating MuseScore and Finale and comparing the two -- Finale comes for some 600 bucks, while MuseScore is free of any charge (moreove, one is legally allowed to make and give away copies of the software). In other words, MuseScore's quality/price ratio is much much superior, it's FREE software to full extent and as a teacher I appreciate that A LOT (both students and teachers are usually broke guys, and I like to teach to share things with each other - [legal] software included :) ).
In reply to MuseScore vs Finale - the relevant feature by Aldo
Hehe well said Aldo.
I would also add that the desire to write inaccurately rhythmic bars betrays a lack of formal musical training.
Whilst this should not be a barrier to the creation of music, the realisation that one's ability to write music notation according to traditional rules should ideally be addressed.
Hopefully MuseScore would assist this learning process.
[Ducks for cover]
In reply to Hehe well said Aldo. I would by ChurchOrganist
Any room in that duck blind?
In reply to Hehe well said Aldo. I would by ChurchOrganist
"... inaccurately rhythmic bars...." Hmmm -- Who wants that? Isn't the debate here over the convenience of various ways to get the rhythm/durations right? It's the current MuseScore/Sibelius overwriting mode vs. potential ways of doing "sliding' insert and delete.
-- J.S.
In reply to "... inaccurately rhythmic by John Sprung
And I am putting forward the idea that you should have it right in your head before you commit to score.
But then I was trained to do that.
In reply to And I am putting forward the by ChurchOrganist
churchorganist: I can't tell whether you are being serious or sarcastic?
Not personally having the ability to prepare everything in my head before scoring, I usually enter what I think the notes/durations should be directly into MS and then ask MS to play it back. If it doesn't sound correct, then I edit as necessary (sometimes the edits are because I just plain entered the wrong durations and other times because I don't like the sound.) In my experience, some of these edits are pretty easy to do within MS's framework (e.g. wrong pitch) and others are fairly tedious, especially rhythmic errors in the middle of measures and/or involving multiple voices.
In reply to who is MS for? by mtherieau
If you work as I do straight to score, then you have the freedom to compose anywhere. (Thank God for netbooks)
Before computers I always used to carry score paper with me, although upon occasion I have jotted ideas down on the back of bar mats, cigarette packets, and on one occasion paper from the roll in the toilet!
Believe me all it takes is practice.
Admittedly sometimes I get the key wrong as I only have acquired pitch and not perfect pitch.
Once you make the decision to work straight to score you will find that you quickly become used to jotting your musical ideas down.
You then use MuseScore to assemble the parts of the jigsaw.
Please try it, however fumbling and inadequate you feel about it at first.
Regards
Michael
In reply to And I am putting forward the by ChurchOrganist
OK, if you have it right in your head and you can play it on a MIDI keyboard, wouldn't it be nice to be able to use that to get all the pitches captured? Then all you'd need to do is go through it assigning the durations and fixing enharmonic spellings.
-- J.S.
In reply to OK, if you have it right in by John Sprung
You misunderstand.
You have it right in your head so can put it straight to score.
That's how I've always worked.
It used to be pencil and manuscript paper.
Now it's mouse and MuseScore.
Regards
Michael
In reply to MIDI keyboard? Who needs one! by ChurchOrganist
Well, different strokes.... There are certainly a lot of people who find MIDI easier. Whether via modes in MuseScore or standalone programs, it makes sense to accommodate that way of working. Of course you're welcome to use MuseScore your way....
-- J.S.
In reply to Well, different strokes.... by John Sprung
I don't see what MIDI has to do with that, either. whether you enter notes by mouse, by MIDI, or by keyboard, the point is, MuseScore is designed to work best when you have the rhythms mostly worked out first before entering the notes.
Of course, that's not to say it wouldn't be cool to extend MuseScore to make it easier to experiment with different rhythms, along the lines of the "scratchpad mode" I proposed earlier. But - once again - this has nothing whatsoever to so with MIDI. It's an entirely different topic - the topic of how to best editi notes independent of how htos notes were entered. And anyone who thinks simply switching to a Finale-like note entry method would accomplish that probably has not ctually used Finale much for that purpose. You just run into a different set of frustrations. Noth programs reward you for getting the rhythms right on entry and penalize you if you need to alter rhythms. Depending on what type of mistakes you happen to make, sometimes the Finale method is more frustrating than the MuseScore method, and sometimes it is the other way around, but neither was designed to be a good rhythmic scratchpad.
In reply to I don't see what MIDI has to by Marc Sabatella
What MIDI has to do with the underlying feature request here is the idea of being able to play on the MIDI board in the way you would perform the piece, rather than as a notation entry device. Capture a lot of pitch data quickly that way, then do a durations and cleanup pass on it. Of course that would be totally new and brilliant, no existing notation software can do that yet.
-- J.S.
In reply to What MIDI has to do with the by John Sprung
Ah, you're talking about a feature MuseScore doesn't have, then - real-time MIDI transcription. We were talking about something rather different. Well, about half a dozen unrelated things, as I listed above. But I guess this makes a seventh entirely unrelated thing to add to my list :-)
I would observe, though, that real-time MIDI transcription is something every single sequencer in the world does by its very nature. And playing in real time into a sequencer and then importing into a notation program is *exactly* the same playing into the notation program in terms of the results you could expect. Which is to say, it works exactly as poorly either way in almost every program I've tried. Except it kind of sort of worked almost OK with Notator, which was an integrated sequencer / notation program (a predecessor to Logic that was pretty hip for its day). Because it integrated notation and sequencing, it was able to apply some pretty sophisticated quantization in a way that produced reasonable results for both playback and notation display. Pretty much everything else I've ever tried real time MIDI note entry with is a *lot* slower than step-time note entry by the time you factor in the cleanup time required. With Notator, I'd say it was only a *little* slower on average, and in certain cases, it could actually work surprisingly well. So Notator proves it is at least theoretically possible, if you want to build a top-of-the-line sequencer into your notation application.
In reply to Ah, you're talking about a by Marc Sabatella
Yes, exactly -- A very difficult but interesting problem to make the cleanup quick and convenient. That's what's all my thinking about rubber time lines that can be stretched and squashed and pinned at key points is all about.
-- J.S.
In reply to Yes, exactly -- A very by John Sprung
"Rubber time lines than be stretched" - actually, that's even a different problem still. I was assuming, you since you said you have the rhythm all figured out, that you would be playing in tempo. If you play in tempo, you don't need to do fancy things with time lines. You just need to correct places where you might have played some notes a little too early or too late for it to be quantized correctly. Sounds like you are talking now about playing completely out of tempo, which gets back to the observation that things go a lot smoother if you have the rhythms figured out first so you can actually play it in tempo.
Taking something that was played completely out of tempo and then imposing time on it - that also where something like my "scratch pad" idea would probably come in most handy. But this would also apply to people who aren't using real-time MIDI input at all, but are just entering notes one a a time with no thought whatsoever to the rhythm, then hoping to fix the rhythm later. As noted, this doesn't work very well, in either MuseScore or Finale. If you rely primarily on playback to tell you when the rhythm is correct (because you aren't comfortable enough with rhythm to get it right the first time), its almost inevitable you will create correct-sounding but incorrectly notated things like, say, a half note starts on the "and" of a beat. These need to be broken up into two notes tied together, but neither MsueScore nor Finale will be of any help in sorting that out, which is another reason why it ends up being far better to work out the rhythms first even when using MIDI - the MIDI import facility *does* know how to break notes into ties reasonably well (if a bit over-aggressive at this).
In reply to "Rubber time lines than be by Marc Sabatella
Well, not *completely* out -- I'm not quite that bad. But the rubber time line idea is that you play as if it were a performance, the way it's supposed to sound. Then click and drag the bar line that ends the first measure to the place where it belongs, and pin it there. That gives you a fixed point, and defines the pickup measure if that's how you want to start. Go to the end, click and drag a bar line to where it belong, yielding the right number of measures, with both ends pinned in place.
Now the bar lines are fixed at both ends, but the notation in between is on rubber. There are durations divided up into measures, and if there are places where the durations and bar lines are right, you click them and pin them in place.
But say somewhere you intended a whole note, but got a whole tied across the bar to a sixteenth. Drag that sixteenth forward across the bar, it merges - squashes - into the whole, and the rest of the rubber stretches forward between there and the next pinned point. You pin that point, and look for the next correction that's needed.
Anyhow, that's the theory.....
Another variation is to present the captured data in "piano roll" form, lay the bar lines over it, and do the stretch and squash on that kind of graphical representation rather than on notation. Then the conversion to notation starts with all the fixes in.
-- J.S.
In reply to Well, not *completely* out -- by John Sprung
John: "the rubber time line idea is that you play as if it were a performance, the way it's supposed to sound. Then click and drag the bar line that ends the first measure to the place where it belongs, and pin it there. That gives you a fixed point, and defines the pickup measure if that's how you want to start." - none of that is necessary. MIDI already defines where beat one is, and virtually all MIDI sequencers give you a click track to play along with. All you have to do is come in on the proper beat, and all notes will already be on the correct beats and in the correct measures.
As for places where you help a note too long, again. You don't need "rubber bar lines" for this. Simply delete the held over note. Inthe other thread where Ideas like this were being discussed, it was for correcting small discrepancies like that - MuseScore already does that just fine. It was about handling places played completely out of tempo, and them assigning bar lines. That is indeed difficult. But not pieces playd conventionally.
In reply to John: "the rubber time line by Marc Sabatella
Aha! Thanks, Marc. You've led me to what I was missing.
I know about click tracks, I even have a couple of the original Paramount click books from the 1960's. But as a self-taught amateur, I've never actually bothered with clicks or metronomes or any of that. The stiff, wooden nature of MuseScore's mathematically precise playback just reinforced my opinion that this was something I could do without.
So, the big realization is that all this rubber stuff is just a weird guys like me mode, not something that would be of widespread utility.
-- J.S.
In reply to Aha! Thanks, Marc. You've by John Sprung
Interesting! I'm glad that despite all the heat, some actual useful information managed to come through! I would definitely recommend using the sequencer metronome/click track when recording for the specific purpose of producing a notated score, but indeed, not necessarily something you'd want to do if your goal is producing a file for playback first. When I've been in this position, I simply produced two different MIDI files - one for playback, in which I take whatever liberties I like, and one in which I try to optimize my playing for notation - using the click track, playing eighth notes as straght as possible (that is sometimes tough for jazzers like me!), holding notes out their full value but not playing so legato than notes overlap, etc.
Finale has an interesting mode in which you tab the tempo with your foot pedal as you play, so you can speed up and slow down all you like and Finale has no trouble finding the beat. That is a great feature for any program that already has real time MIDI input, but of course, MuseScore currently doesn't. But my guess is, there are other sequencers around that do, and I think this might have been discussed in the "free tempo" discussion. Which is basically what you're talking about now - free tempo. I would assume those sequencers would create the necessary tempo change events so notes would play back correctly but also appear to notation programs to have been played on the correct beats. Or, they might offer something like the rubber bar line idea. Anyhow, I'd definitely be trying to get my MIDI file into as good a shape as possible for import with respect to making it notate as well as possible.
In reply to Interesting! I'm glad that by Marc Sabatella
I think my MIDI keyboard can generate clicks, I'll have to try it tonight. I'm accustomed to using my right foot for the dampers, so tapping time would mean unlearning a habit.... This is something I've never done....
-- J.S.
In reply to Thanks -- by John Sprung
I only had a little time to try it last night -- it's a lot harder than it looks.
-- J.S.
In reply to What MIDI has to do with the by John Sprung
But by choosing this way of composing, you're limiting your imagination to what is playable on a MIDI keyboard.
This I suppose is fine if you're limiting yourself to composing for keyboards.
But if you're writing for concert band for example you need to carry a far broader sonic picture in your head - very often one that is incapable of being expressed in terms of a MIDI keyboard.
Most of my own work is for choirs and organ apart from a few pieces I wrote for classical guitar in the 70's. To limit my palette of harmonies to what is playable on a MIDI keyboard would be unthinkable! Apart from anything else the rhythms I am working with are so complex that you cannot notate them - natural speech rhythms do not lend themselves particularly well to a 4/4 time signature, so I'm continually working with odd bar lengths - very often with a customised time signature. The resulting notation is a guide to the music, the full rhythmic nuances being added in rehearsal.
To enter this kind of stuff by anything other than the mouse or qwerty keyboard takes far longer - I know - I've tried it.
In reply to You're limiting your imagination by ChurchOrganist
Yes, right, this is only for stuff that works more conveniently on keyboards than otherwise. Agreed, it doesn't cover everything. But it would be helpful for a large enough amount of music to be worth doing.
-- J.S.
Look, ChurchOrganist,
This thread is about MIDI support. Why you think that everybody else should learn how to notate music from scratch and keep barking that point in here is both misplaced, and kind of conceited.
Secondly, what you described as being impossible to score, except for the way you do it, is not true. Sequencers and notation software, both allow you to create whatever type of time signature you like, whatever key you like, and notation software in particular gives you access to all and every type of editing notation from the book of manuscript scoring (i.e. slurs, double accents, ties, etc.). If you can imagine the finished piece on paper, it can be done using software.
Regarding MIDI, I won't address what Marc says is 6 or 7 different things. But as far as most of us are concerned, once a sequencer has recorded the song as a MIDI file, it can be doctored in notation software to end up ready for professional publishing. [Classical Guitar may be the exception.] That includes various instruments. On a MIDI sequencer, a musician would simply record the different instrument on a different MIDI track/channel. If there happened to be something "wrong" with it as pertaining to your orchestration, it's no big deal to change it to suit the instrument, and key signature to fit reality. This is a no-brainer. Recorded in "C" by keyboard, can easily be changed to the key of B-flat clarinet, if need be, and scored for the clarinetest to read. Simple.
If you do have something that is very hard to do with MIDI (whatever that could be, I don't have a clue, except possibly guitar), well then you use MIDI for all the parts that are doable, and then you resort to that instrument (human voice?) that you must do the other way. MIDI here is a HUGE time saver for all the parts that CAN be done with MIDI. But of course, all human singing can be notated just like any other instrument, so I don't see what you're squawking about.
Lastly, Marc too, speaks so ignorantly about the reality of how many musicians use MIDI keyboards and would like to notate their writing from MIDI to Notation, but thinks that it cannot be done. The people I'm referring to usually have some basic understanding of reading music. As we all know, writing music is a special talent, a gift even, that most musicians do not possess. ChurchOrganist should count him/herself as blessed.
So when musicians tackle the idea of getting their music into a readable form, MIDI is the perfect starting point. They can figure out, easily enough, what the BPM should be, and what key it is in. That info is entered into the Sequencer before actual recording. The songwriter now plays and records his song and it becomes a 5 mintue long song, let's say. BUT, all the notes are there, with durations, because MIDI generally has no problem with that. It's a simple formula - Given the BPM, if a note last a certain amount of time, the computer can figure out if the note is a whole or an eighth or a 32nd.
Now, Sibelius (and apparently MuseScore, according to Marc) force note counts to add up to 1, in each measure. Therefore these 2 notation software programs will be horrible to use in cleaning up a MIDI file. But Finale' does allow you to nudge notes in either direction without affecting the values of the surrounding notes. So anybody with a general understanding of how to read sheet music, can move the notes to their proper positions (in the wrong position to begin wtih because humans do not play perfectly). In the case of a note needing to tie over to the next measure, why do you think that is a problem??? It's simple to make it do that. Sibelius, MuseScore, Finale, etc., can all do that.
The composer of a song can figure out those little issues easily enough. I do it all the time.
MIDI is an invaluable tool, and an enormous time saver, and there are countless musicians with basic to excellent sight-reading skill, who do not really know how to score their own music. MIDI and Notation software get them in the neighborhood. Finale', my bet, would help them tremendously because of its ability to edit and move notes around without affecting surrounding notes thus making it the tool for the day.
Why you seem to be in denial of this basic fact is an amazement. Just search all the electronic musician websites out there and see how often this issue comes up as I described it. The same thing I just wrote was perfectly written on that other thread "Split Midi Track to Double Staff" by another writer.
I would NEVER dream (having tried in the past) of starting from scratch to notate my music. It's so freakin' complicated that seeing the music on the score after having been imported from a MIDI file, is an almost infinite help, even though it is horribly incorrect on the score in its initial condition. I can figure out what's wrong, just looking at it. I just need a good piece of software to allow the editing. Apparently Finale' is the only tool for this case.
In reply to Disgust by Toddskins
I have no idea what you think I speak "ignorantly" of, but if you have specific information that contadicts anything I've written, I would appreciate it if you simply posted it and refrained from the personal attacks.
I would like to point out that I never said that creating notation from MIDI cannot be done. Just that most programs do a terrible job of it when attempting to do so automatically, and the amount of work required to do a decent job of it is usually more than the amount of work required to enter the music manually. That's been my experience over the past 20+ years, but if yours differs, again, a specific counterexample presented without personall attacks would be a more appropriate response. You say MIDI is a huge time saver, but I,m guessing you,ve either never tried the other methods, or else you've settled for the very poorly notated music that results from automatic transcription, as the amount fo cleanup required to produced a eadable score is usually pretty large, as I said.
As for the completely and totally unrelated question of Finale versus Sibelius editing modes - a subject that once more has nothing to do with MIDI - you are completely mitaken when you claim that this difference makes it impossible or even more difficult to perform edits using the Sibelius method. You are even wrong in your characterization of how they work. You say Finale allows you to nudge notes without affecting the other notes, but this is false. *Every* change you make in Finale affects the subsequent notes, by altering their start positions. It is the Sibelius method that preserves the integrity of other notes, because it never changes the start position of any other note unnecessarily, whereas Finale always does. That's just a fact. It is of course possible to noetheless repair the damage Finale does each time you make an edit and still get the job done, and depending on your own preferences and biases and willingness to invest the time necessary to learn both systems, you might personally find the Finale easier to wrap your head around, but as far as actually counting clicks/keystrokes, I can pretty much guaranee it is not going to come out easier on average except in the specific case of correcting typos (as opposed to correcting the types errors that occur in MIDI, which are different from typos).
In reply to I have no idea what you think by Marc Sabatella
Your guarantee means nothing since it is completely wrong. I even posted to you the link to Finale' illustration on how their software allows you 4 different methods on how an edit can affect the rest of the score, and you said you did not see how that meant anything. Well, it's just that sort of blindedness that is the problem here.
You wrote: "You seem to be implying that this page suggests that Finale also provies the Sibelius-like method, but it doesn't. It still displaces all subsequent notes in the measure every time tou make a change to one note, which I find awkward for most editing other than correction of typos",
and yet, if you had actually read the illustration, it demonstrated that Finale' offers you options that do NOT work like Sibelius. You have not one, but 4, options. Look at option #1 "Leave the measure alone". This does not displace notes to the subsequent measures. All the existing notes within that measure remain as is! And options #3 and #4 push the notes to the right. #3 moves the remaining notes into the next measure only, while #4 will move all notes and rebar making all the subsequent measures add up to "1". Lots of choices here.
Stop being an idiot about this. Look at the facts of the illustration, and learn.
If a stranger reads these posts, I am sure he/she would follow it quite well. It seems to be just you, who cannot understand what I have posted. Not just fail to understand, but continue to ignore the facts concerning said software.
One last time. The amount of cleanup of an imported MIDI file is neglible, very minor, compared with having to learn how to notate music from scratch, for thousands and thousands of musicians.
Those who know how to score complicated music with paper and pencil, are not those to whom this MIDI question pertains.
In reply to Your guarantee by Toddskins
Your link to the Finale method told me nothing I didn't already know - I've used Finale for many years. I know how Fonale works quite well. Option number 1 as documented in that excerpt is not even remotely like what MuseScore does. When Finale says "leave the neasure alone", it means, allow it to be corrupt - to have the wrong number of beats. And every single note in that measure after the one you altered will have moved to a different time position. These are the two specific flaws -that MuseScore does not suffer from. I was never talking about happens to the notes in subsequent measures - nether program ordinarily displaces those any more that necessary. I was talking the handling of about subsequent notes in the * same* measure, because in fact, that is the only real difference between the two methods. museScore lleaves them exactly where you played them, and Finale moves them. It's really as simple as that.
And again, please refrain from the personal attacks. I do know what I am talking about, and insulting me just makes you look bad.
But your last point is worth addressing. If you honestly don't know how to read music, then the amount of cleanup required is indeed negligible, as it is just as likely that any improvements you try to make will actually make things worse. But then, if you wish to not do any cleanup, both MuseScore and Finale will happily turn your MIDI performance into poorly notated music. I thought we were talking about the cleanup required to actually turn this into readable music, but that kind of work can only be done by someone who does in fact know how to notate music properly. Your hypothetical user who doesn't read music isn't going to be well served by either program. That's is much like arguing about whether Microsoft Word or WordPerfect is a better word rocessor for editing the results of speech - to - text conversion if you don't read English. There is no getting around the need to write in order to use a word processor effectively, and the same is true of notation. I would agree, however, that notation problem is potentially easier to solve, and with enough work, it might be possible to design a program that actually did this well. That is pretty far outside the scope of MuseScore right now, thoughh. And once more, whether a program uses sibelius or finale styles of note editing is irrelevant - despite your claims that you are unable to edit using the sibelius method, it is in fact quite possible, simple, and often more efficient that the finale method.
In reply to Disgust by Toddskins
I find your remarks highly offensive and uncalled for.
If you look further back in this thread you will see that I am fully conversant with the limitations of MIDI - I was a backing track programmer for 10 years, and have written some music for MIDI synthesisers, most of which could not have been written by playing in from a keyboard, although some parts of the compositions could have been entered that way - I will try to get mp3s of the pieces up on my website so you can see what I mean.
MIDI was, is and always will be a performance protocol. It was designed for communication between synthesisers, and is consequently ill adapted for the automatic production of notation.
The notion of entering music which changes time signature on a bar by bar basis in real-time by MIDI keyboard is to be quite frank ridiculous!
To call me conceited for putting forward the means of composition used by all composers up to the 1980's betrays the fact that you are lacking in musicianship training - the only other way of doing it was to manipulate recorded improvisations with razor blade and editing tape.
And, as an aside I came to MuseScore from Finale, and can assert that you can get into an unholy mess with Finale's bar editing system - there have been many times when I have just emptied the bar and started again, plus if you forget to turn off the warning system you get a dialogue box popping up after each change to tell you the measure is wrong! FWIW I used to enter transcriptions 1 part at a time using Finale's real-time MIDI input facility.
Perhaps I'm just a dinosaur?
Regards
Michael
All your scoring know-how, is irrelevant to this thread. It's about MIDI with regard to Notation.
You state that your personal scoring abilities are of the rare breed who have gone from paper and pencil to using one of the notation software suites (for which they were created). In this particular thread though, your comments are of no help.
In fact, your comments about using a MIDI keyboard being unproductive for you, are not only unhelpful, but untrue for the thousands upon thousands who do in fact use, and enjoy using, the keyboard to enter notes onto the score. They do not agree with you. All of the notation programs happen to boast that as one of their features (entering music via MIDI). So again, what are you writing in this thread for???
Did you come to boast of how great your skills are and have no need for MIDI? Or did you think that the people whose skills are not in any way equal to yours, would gain something from hearing your opinions that MIDI is a poor tool for getting music onto the score? Again, the people who are interested in this thread, would disagree with you.
In reply to Irrelevant by Toddskins
I've obviously touched a raw nerve with you Toddskins -
"irrelevant", "conceited" etc etc
If you cannot accept my viewpoint then I suggest you cease boring us with your bigoted remarks.
From the very beginning of this thread, which is about general MIDI support, if you took the trouble to read it, and not just about converting MIDI streams to notation, I have presented the viewpoint that further MIDI support in MuseScore should be within playback rather than realtime MIDI conversion.
As I keep saying MIDI is a performance protocol. Conversion to notation is an extremely weak point with it. Ok it's slightly better than trying to convert raw audio data into notation, but still many of the basic requirements needed for accurate notation translation are missing from the protocol, which is a stream of performance data generated by the various MIDI controllers being manipulated by the performer.
The fact that far too many musicians have had inadequate aural training, and cannot be bothered to tackle the learning curve to correct this is immaterial to the discussion, which is supposed to be about the direction MuseScore should take for the further enhancement to the production of scores, which it is already good at.
To be personally attacked for encouraging people to look outside the box in order to improve their creativity is also beyond the scope of this discussion.
In reply to I've obviously touched a raw nerve by ChurchOrganist
that this is so personal to you that you would be better off just communicating directly?
I don't see this as improving MuseScore really.
Best regards,
I had the opportunity to see that moving bar lines is possible not in MuseScore but in Logic. There's a feature called "lock SPTM" - or something like that, I don't own Logic so I can't be more precise - that allows changing the tempo measure by measure, beat by beat or even sub-beat by sub-beat WITHOUT MOVING MIDI EVENTS on the time grid. Using that feature, one can play freely, than go back to piano-roll view and set each beats exactly where needed by simply creating a tempo track. Once he's done, the musician can export a MIDI file, than import it in MuseScore, ready for transcription. Give it a try, if you like.
P.S. Please stop flaming. After a while it gets quite boring.
I noticed a weird behaviour in MuseScore 1.1. When you import a MIDI file, you are given an option to choose the shortest note value you would like to deal with. That looks rather promising (some sort of basic qunatisation? Exactly what I would like to apply!), but simply does not work. Whatever note value you choose, the MIDI file is always translated into notation dealing with the shorter value available in MuseScore. Is it a bug?
In reply to Trying to be positive... by Aldo
Can you open a new post with a file to demonstrate the issue and steps to reproduce in the Support and bug reports forum ?
In reply to Can you open a new post with by [DELETED] 5
Not right now. I'm going to try this evening (Italian time). I never did it before, so I just hope the procedure is simple and fool-proof, or I could fail.
In reply to Bug? by Aldo
I just realized that the "bug" (provided that it is a bug) affects only my Mac version of MuseScore, while the program properly quantises MIDI files as requested in my Windows version. Both of them are MuseScore 1.1, and I try providing the same MIDI file - the Windows version deals with it properly, the Mac one does not and opens the score with a "literal translation", that is with many overlappings and values shorter than required. Such an import is virtually useless, unless the MIDI file has been strictly quantised from the very start and fed to MuseScore in a "ready to go" form. I tried the import feature on an OSX 10.4.11 system, a Windows 7 Starter one and an old Windows XP SP2 one. OK with Windows, thumb down with the Mac.
In reply to MIDI import in OSX version by Aldo
Is the mac computer a PPC one ? G3 or G4 ?
In reply to Is the mac computer a PPC one by [DELETED] 5
It's a PPC on. Exactly, it's a MiniMac equipped with a 1.42 GHz G4 processor.
In reply to Is the mac computer a PPC one by [DELETED] 5
It's a PPC one. Sorry for the missing "e". :)
If you've ever actually used Finale, and I mean dig deep down into the software. I remember back on Finale 2000a where the pdf instruction manual was something like 1500 pages, if you dug deep deep down you realized quickly that it's was midi capabilities while not in sequencer format could actually rival the performance/playback of many good midi sequencers. Now it's 2012, 12 years is long enough that we need something in the music open source music world with those capabilities. I'm not saying as a Linux user I don't appreciate the strides Musescore has made in the Finale world, but don't go making comments about how good music notation software doesn't need to have advanced midi capabilities until you've really dug into Finale and come out knowing what really good Music Notation software could do even more than a decade ago.
P.S. This message is a reply to the first comment in this thread. And above you find a repeat of it in the appropriate place. Sorry for the double post.
P.P.S. I also apologize if I'm coming across as a whining prick saying "Why can't open source and FREE be as good as FINALE THE $600 NOTATION program. I'm really not trying to come off this way. I just don't like when people make comments about what software should or shouldn't be thereby limiting ideas and creativity in what could go in that software. I'm a heavy believer that as a community of open source users, if we do not limit ourselves there is no reason why our software couldn't be as good if not better than their commercial counterparts. We need to ban together and make software worth using, and not say "it's a waste of time to incorporate this or that...".
In reply to Ever actually used Finale? by nymusicman
I think you are arguing a bit of a straw man here. No one is saying MuseScore couldn't or shouldn't *eventually* start to address more playback issues. Indeed, it's already doing just that for 2.0, with a number of significant improvements already in place. It's just a question of priorities. Good notation software does not "have to" include particularly sophisticated playback facilities in order to be good notation software - it has to include particularly sophisticated *notation* facilities in order to be good notation software. Once the motation facilities are up to the level where they stop being the limiting factor, then it makes sense to turn more attention to the sophistication of playback. MuseScore still has a way to go in the notation department before playback starts to become the main limiting factor, but 2.0 definitely addresses many of those issues, so at that point, it should be much closer to the point where playback might take a higher priority.
One could still quibble over whether the MIDI capabilities should be built into the same actual executable file or whether a separate utilities that integrates well with MuseScore would make more sense (I personally lean toward the latter), but again, no one is saying it would never make sense to improve the playback capabilities of MuseScore.
But FWIW, yes, I am am quite familiAr with the capabilities of Finale in the MIDI department, and I stand by my comment - it is extemely creue and rudimentary by the standards of professional MIDI editing applications. That is not to say the quality of its playback isn't very good, but that,s not a question of "editing" - it's really a completely diffeent topic. A program can be amazingly good at playback and provide no MIDI editing capabilities at all, or it can be amazingly good at MIDI editing but provide no special capabilities in terms of automatically producing realistic playback. The two topics really have mothi to do with each other. The OP was talking about MIDI editing capabilities, but I think most people woild say that realism of playback is far more important. These aren't mutually exclusive, but they definitely aren't the same thing, either.
In reply to Ever actually used Finale? by nymusicman
@nymusicman If a software developer would present himself with the intention to improve the playback capabilities in MuseScore or implement MIDI out, we will welcome him with open arms. Unfortunately, until today this did not happen but we keep on searching. Fingers crossed.
In reply to Waiting with patience by Thomas
I would like to play MuseScore 1.2 compositions via midi USB output through my Yamaha CVP-205 electronic piano/synthsizer. Keyboard input to the composition process works fine with my USB midi 1X1 interface cable. I understand from reading this and other threads that, for reasons I am not sophisticated enough to understand, MuseScore 1.2 cannot do the USB midi output operation. I have found that MuseScore can write the file out in standard midi format onto a floppy disk. I insert that disk into the floppy drive on the piano and it plays the score well enough using the piano/synthsizer's instrumentation voices (e.g, alto, tenor, and bari sax voices) sounding much better than the sound generator and speakers in my laptop. If MuseScore can write useable midi output on a floppy disk, could it simply route that data stream to the USB output midi interface?
Thanks from a beginner.
In reply to MIDI output support by ewstuebi
I'd recommend posting your question to a separate theead. This very long and rambling thread isn't really related, and asking here just makes it harder to respond. I suspect you'll find the answer is, sure, if someone were to fond it important to add this feature, they could probably do so. But I'm guessing it woild turn out to be very OS-specific - PC versus Mac versus Linux.
In reply to I'd recommend posting your by Marc Sabatella
Thanks, Marc. You know I thought the same thing and I looked all over to find how to start a new thread and could not figure out how to do it. I got to some windows that said "You are not authorized to post here".
How do I start a new thread?
-Ed
PS: What is a MIDI JACK, or MIDI JACK OUTPUT in case it isn't a thing?
In reply to MIDI output support by ewstuebi
First: if you have permission to post a reply, you should have permission to post a new thread as far as I know. While looking at the main page for a forum (the page with a list of all topics within that forum), just click the "Post new forum topic" link toward the top of the page.
As for JACK, it's software, not hardware. See http://jackaudio.org. I don't know the specifics, but I gather it would be possible to configure MuseScore to output to JACK, then configure some other program to receive that inout and forward it to a device on the USB port. But the question might be, why? If you don't like the built in sounds within MuseScore, it's quite possible another free soundfont would suit you better - see Soundfont in the Handbook.
In reply to MIDI output support by ewstuebi
What I do is go to the >Forums, select the forum that I think my question fits and then I select "Post new forum topic" toward the top left.
In reply to MIDI output support by ewstuebi
I think you'll find this thread relevant
Configure MuseScore and Jack for playback to a MIDI keyboard
HTH
Michael