Angelo,

Sorry, haven't checked this thread recently. I don't actually play anything back "within" Sibelius or Finale -- I'm a complete VSL snob now, and I can't stand playing back my scores on anything but! [;)]

Sibelius or Finale outputs midi to either a host (like Bidule), or to Logic (I just "hard-wire" my midi inputs to the Instrument objects), or to my slave machines. An audio file output is rendered from whichever of the above I'm using to listen. I also use MaxMSP a lot, which makes it very easy to simply capture audio from a variety of sources and "mix" it into a stereo output file.
That said, the piece I mentioned from the Projects section is all Horizon samples, played using a score analysis and sample playback system I built myself -- which I gave up developing when the VIs locked up all the sample content in .dat files. It had a function to render output, so that's how I captured the mix. But using a notation program with a VI host is simple enough, and in most cases will allow you to capture the audio playback to a stereo file.

As far as whether a stereo file is necessary for a concert work, in my experience it's very handy, particular given the quality possible with the VIs. I use them occasionally (though *very* rarely) to "assist" an ensemble that seems to be having a particularly difficult time wrapping their heads around a piece, but also for general demos. This is particularly handy when a premiere is either not recorded, or is just too full or problems to be provide a valuable documentation of the piece.

cheers,

J.

jbm,

Thanks. Interesting how composers approach this two notation programs.

In my opinion, this two programs are not layed out for the way I compose, in fact, I think it does not support any proceedings and workflows of any composer I know and discussed the programs with.

Could it be that this folks who make this programs just don't know what the workflow of composers are when making a partitura?

.

@Another User said:

Could it be that this folks who make this programs just don't know what the workflow of composers are when making a partitura?

Well, I think it's dangerous to think in terms of such universals as "the workflow of composers", since I find the more I learn about how others work the less I can say that any preferred way of working even exists. Things that I may find absolutely intuitive are awkward or irritating, and possibly even taboo, for others. But certainly the primary limiting factor of most software is that it's engineered to *sell* -- it's a product for the commercial market, so it's designed for the lowest common denominator (which means pop and/or jazz arrangements, and film-scoring, in the notation world).
I've been bouncing around ideas for adaptive composition environments, which gradually learn a composer's workflow... but that's just dreamware! I do often wonder why all these platforms are so painfully similar, though. I mean, it seems to me that Ableton Live is about the only somewhat unique music creation app to have hit the market in the past decade. I suppose Bidule and Audiomulch are interesting as well, but they have little application for concert music...

cheers,

J.

IMO, its all about money. These programs are written for the masses not for the relatively few high level modern composers. A huge part of their market is music schools/teachers/students as well as, just as JBM mentioned, Pop, Jazz, Film, Theater, Recording Studios, etc. Every business tends to cater to the needs of the largest part of its customer base and, for music notation, that means standard practices of the general music creating public.

I'm not saying this is bad or good. However, its quite logical and to be expected. For a company to spend the time and money required to fulfill the needs of a group they would think of as "specialists" would only make sense if there were enough of them to make it worth the company's while. Even though you may only speak with people who do the same kinds of things you do, that doesn't mean such a group is large in the grand scheme of things. From a business point of view, its all about filling the needs of the many rather than the few. Otherwise, they won't be in business very long.

In time, I think these programs will reach the point where anything we can imagine will be possible and even easy. It's just that, for the more esoteric features we're probably going to have to wait a while.

Be well,

Jimmy

Obviously there is some truth in what you say, but I don't agree that the makers of these programs don't think about their professional users. There are many features that I would like that others wouldn't, and vice versa, but the problem lies in the fact that the higher up the professional scale one gets, the more personal the choice of features required becomes.

However, there are features that would make sense for all professionals, but it seems that they are rather difficult (read time consuming and therefore expensive) to implement. All any of us can do is continually pester said companies, so that they understand the importance.

DG

@DG said:

Obviously there is some truth in what you say, but I don't agree that the makers of these programs don't think about their professional users. There are many features that I would like that others wouldn't, and vice versa, but the problem lies in the fact that the higher up the professional scale one gets, the more personal the choice of features required becomes.

However, there are features that would make sense for all professionals, but it seems that they are rather difficult (read time consuming and therefore expensive) to implement. All any of us can do is continually pester said companies, so that they understand the importance.

DG

And i think you've hit the nail on the head here, Daryl.
The problem of ascending professional personal choice versus the cost and complexity of providing a much wider range of individually selelctive tools and components may well continue to be a pipe dream, as profit is quite naturally the desired end result, and those extra choices may well be viewed as 'academic' rather than a potentially 'profitable'.


Regards,

Alex.

yup. Very good points.

I suppose one has to know how a number of programs work in order to find them lacking, which already implies a certain level of experience or expertise. And the more you compare and contrast different apps, the more you'll find lacking in any given one.

However, with a little (read: a lot) of inventiveness on the part of software developers, I do think that a user-configurable workflow is quite possible... not simple, but possible. And this could have the advantage of appealing to novices and experienced professionals in (relatively) equal measure. Now, what does it look like? hmm... (head-scratching for the next decade, or so) [;)]

J.