Add to notation program comparison?

• Jan 16, 2016 - 06:13

Some time ago several of us engraved a one-page piece for solo classical guitar using six different notation programs: Encore, Finale, Music Press, Overture, Score and Sibelius, using each program's default settings. Interesting differences! Then LilyPond came along and Music Press went out of business, so the one replaced the other in a second edition. You can download that at:

http://home.earthlink.net/~jfalbano/Six%20Music%20Notation%20Programs%2…

[This may not display correctly in your browser, but download the PDF and it will look fine.]

Would anyone like to do this one page in MuseScore? The new edition would include all seven programs, and you'd have the chance to show the quality MuseScore offers. Please let me know, at jrethorst [at] post [dot] com.

Thank you,
John R.


Comments

Would you have an original scan from the score to start from?

And if you talk about 'default settings' how far does that go? I see for example that you've only split off the Coda in Sibelius, not in the other examples. MuseScore allows by default both approaches.

In some examples the arrangement text is differently aligned and uses a different number of lines. Once again MuseScore supports all of that 'by default'.

Same goes for showing the instrument name or not, for the DC al signe texts, ...

In reply to by jeetee

Thanks for your interest!

The original is the engraving by the Score program; all others were taken from that. I don't know what the Score user had for a source.

Sorry that I just mentioned 'default settings' -- that doesn't need to go that far. With enough tweaking, any program's output can look similar to any others. The idea is just to show what a program can do as acceptable workflow. The Sibelius example, done by that program's lead developer, had some tweaking. But every engraver tried to make their output look good.

Best,
John

I wonder most about the rests. Looks like they have been manually positioned for readability. I suspect automatic placement would not generally do as well in any of those programs except LilyPond and perhaps Score. Definitely would not in MuseScore. So if that sort of thing considered fair game?

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Thanks for your interest!

Most rests probably were manually positioned. When I mentioned default settings, I only meant what's acceptable workflow, nothing more exact. Manual positioning of anything for clarity or legibility is definitely fair game.

Best,
John

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

OK, that sounds fair enough. I did a number of similar comaprisons when we were working on improving the layout algorithms during the development of 2.0, and part of that really was seeing the results with *no* tweaking, part of it seeing how easy the tweaks were. My sense is we'll do pretty well here with a minimum amount of manual tweaks.

It might make sense for someone more experienced in guitar notation to take this on. But if no one else volunteers, I'll give it a shot...

In reply to by [DELETED] 5

For the record: for the pdf aspect, this does changes nothing (although opinions may be different or ambiguous, according to sources, on the fact that alterations placed before a note remain valid for all notes of the same name - and different height - to the same measure)

But for playback, it's more disturbing, because I strongly suspect that the D (measure 3 voice 2) is sharp, identically of the D same measure voice 4, at the lower octave.

See these selections:
Without the D #: Elegy A.mscz
With: Elegy B.mscz

EDIT: or more simply, it is a location error (a "typo") between the F# voice 2 (which is at the keysig) same measure, and this D #: Elegy C.mscz (the source would have been useful)

In reply to by [DELETED] 5

If it's helpful, I'll gladly turn out an updated score from a more recent version of LilyPond, but I'm wondering if there is an "authority" score, based on these kinds of comments. If there is one, that would be good to show at the beginning, I think.

Also, John, I think it would be a good idea to show each program's version that is/was used to create these scores. That alone can dispell misinterpretations as to each program's capabilities. I always enjoy comparisons like these, but I think it's not doing anyone a favor without knowing each program's version and with what criteria they are being compared since each of them are constantly improving. Just something to consider going forward.

In reply to by jeetee

IMO
One would expect a b-flat in the first voice of the second bar.
Flatted 6th ('minor in major') in the key of D
From diminished VII [c-sharp - e- (g) - b-flat] going to the D chord.

EDIT: Diminished VII considered as (VII) -> enharmonically F#7 -> B9 or D#07

In reply to by [DELETED] 5

"Any opinion about keeping the # for the F? Sibelius has it, Lilypond doesn't."

Considering the key signature (E minor, with the F #), and the fact that there is no F natural in the previous measure, and since the beginning (so, no cautionary accidental necesarry), there is no objective reason to add a # to the F in the third measure.

> I think it would be a good idea to show each program's version that is/was used to create these scores. That alone can dispell misinterpretations as to each program's capabilities. I always enjoy comparisons like these, but I think it's not doing anyone a favor without knowing each program's version and with what criteria they are being compared since each of them are constantly improving.

That's a very good idea. I'm sorry I didn't think of it at the beginning. I will try to contact the contributors and see if they remember what versions they used.

Thank you,
John

Here's the updated version for LilyPond 2.19.36. I already sent this to John, but here's a sneak peak before it is included in the next edition of John's comparison doc: Elegy-LilyPond-2.19.36.pdf

Unfortunately, I had to manually adjust many of the rests' positions as well, but beyond that there were only 5 extra tweaks that I thought should be applied to the score, and not that it was bad without them, just that much better. Everything else is the default settings/appearance.

One thing that John and I felt was important to remember with this compendium is that it is not really a comparison of which program is right and which is wrong, but rather it is a gallery showcasing the different artistic styles that each program comes with. Naturally, each program can be tweaked to look more or less like another and all can be made to be notationally "identical", but looking at the document that way, at least for me, gives me a greater appreciation for the art form that music engraving is.

Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.