Stevesong
After reading your thorough and well manifested cabling and program implementations. I'm just curious to ask, why don't you use logic's notation all-together. Mind you I've not any experience with VI. Just pro/ed. But I've wondered what would Vi set up be compared to pro/ed. in score page ? I understand Finale's score locks on to a better looking score and guitar tablature of-course. Scanning to mantion anothor etc.. But I'm wondering why not just use logic's notation ? Or are you just fulfilling the previous thread onto the possibilities on using finale's. In that case nevermind, and thanks for the info.

Stevesong
I just noticed that I overlooked your name which holds the clue. You're a songwriter. therefore that makes sense. Finale' does make excellent sheet music. And is worth using for that format. Although I still havn't heard from anyone on how VI is being used with the score page ?

@R.K. said:

Stevesong
After reading your thorough and well manifested cabling and program implementations. I'm just curious to ask, why don't you use logic's notation all-together. Mind you I've not any experience with VI. Just pro/ed. But I've wondered what would Vi set up be compared to pro/ed. in score page ? I understand Finale's score locks on to a better looking score and guitar tablature of-course. Scanning to mantion anothor etc.. But I'm wondering why not just use logic's notation ? Or are you just fulfilling the previous thread onto the possibilities on using finale's. In that case nevermind, and thanks for the info.

RK, some have had this discussion here before, and the consensus among many seems to be that Logic's notation. like so many notation components inside of major DAW's is inadequate and time consuming, compared to a dedicated nontation program like Finale or Sibelius. Both those programs have advantages in terms of usage, and printout, but disadvantaged by their inability to playback, record, and identify external articulative varations. It's fair to say the sample library market has steamed ahead with many efficient improvements, and innovations, but the notation and daw makers are still trading on the technology they developed some years ago. (IMHO) One only has to read specific product forums to understand this.

It is, ultimately, a matter of choice and working practise, and some get on with logic's notation ok, likewise cubase, etc....

But i think if the day comes when a notation or daw developer really works at efficient notational input and finished result, coupled with solid integration into a DAW playback and record structure, then quite a few people may be interested.
(Cubase and Logic could do this within the relative framework they've already built. It's just a case of wanting to.)


Steve,

Thanks for the information. I did have a spell with Patchbay, but couldn't figure it out to the degree i wanted. You've provided the extra information i was lacking, so i'll go back and try again after the current batch of work.
I appreciate the time you took to explain this.

Regards,

Alex.

Alex:

Glad that the information I provided appears to have been helpful. Actually, despite my screen-name, I would not describe myself as mainly a "songwriter" - - although I have written quite a number of songs - - but I am a composer of "concert" music - piano, chamber, vocal and orchestral. The reason I use Finale is simple - I've been using it since version 1.5 (c.1990), and have become fairly adept with it, given college courses in its use and employed it as a medium for teaching music at the college level. I am really not well-acquainted with Logic's notational capabilities and would happily avoid having to learn another notation program when there is one that I already know fairly well.

On another point: Avid's acquisition of Sibelius is interesting to me and no doubt to other - - especially long-time - - Finale users in that it invites speculation about what might happen to Finale - - especially the idea that MakeMusic (Finale's parent company) might be acquired by Apple or Mark of the Unicorn. One might imagine, for example, versions of Logic or Digital Performer that integrated Finale into these sequencers in ways that go far beyond the capabilities of the setup I described.

Stevesong
I too used finale back in the day it was introduced. I remember bonny J. in Hollywood who had the task of debugging the score programs. She would finish one program and recieve the task to another. Encore for example was an excelent program for the pc platform. I've tried many at that time, including mr. T ect..
Common sense said finale is the dedicated program that ultimately would take center stage. So I learned it also for future use and on the way to composing. Then I ran into treacherous hurdlles of ease of use, studio dedication, all around familialarity of key commands, and the dreadfull notes lock that made the score look very presentable. I then went back to logic and cannot tell you how easy and accomplished my work flow has been. there is numerous ways of using logic because of its versatilities of the other side of the program, e.g the envirnment,midi,audio. ect..
My compositions today are in the neighborhood of hundred of pages at a time.
With full playback, feel, and versatilities of score exstraction. I'm not trying to be a nusense by all means, but i'm greatful to the germans that offer us a real program that can do it all. And a forum to discuss it with. DG is the only man that had the guts to discuss cubases side of score that i know of. I'm not going to repeat it. But am i the only one trying to confirm. Even in a program that i dont even use ? Audible, inaudible notes. Gohst notes, invisible notes ect.. there is no comparising to the publishing printing programs, of what a dedicated studio full sequencing, score program can do with it all. One can also look at the present situation of all the advanced samples out there today. And no one has had the time to create dry samples of true sounding instruments, except VSL. In the world mind you. What do people in the music business do besides try to hit the lottery from day to day. ??????? Anyway thanks for the great info, just to mention.

I too continue to hope for some acknowledgement from the VSL team that they think/care about their notation-based users. Like Steve I have been a Finale usere since version 1, and continue to dream of the day when notation software and sample sounds work together (relatively) seamlessly. The combination Finale/Logic/VSL setup that Steve describes is one that I have been using for a number of years, and it works pretty well. I can confirm (so far) that Finale 2007 has fixed the playback problem of 2006. I would also mention that the updated Human Playback features in Finale 2007, which not without difficulties, provide much more refined ways to have Finale automatically assign the proper MIDI commands to Logic/VSL on playback. I have been working both with VSL and VI setups, and both work well. There is a bit of work to set things up, but the combination of Finale/Logic/VSL(VI) is this best it has ever been.

Michael Matthews

@michael.matthews said:

I too continue to hope for some acknowledgement from the VSL team that they think/care about their notation-based users. Like Steve I have been a Finale usere since version 1, and continue to dream of the day when notation software and sample sounds work together (relatively) seamlessly. The combination Finale/Logic/VSL setup that Steve describes is one that I have been using for a number of years, and it works pretty well. I can confirm (so far) that Finale 2007 has fixed the playback problem of 2006. I would also mention that the updated Human Playback features in Finale 2007, which not without difficulties, provide much more refined ways to have Finale automatically assign the proper MIDI commands to Logic/VSL on playback. I have been working both with VSL and VI setups, and both work well. There is a bit of work to set things up, but the combination of Finale/Logic/VSL(VI) is this best it has ever been.

Michael Matthews

That's three of us, Michael. Now we just need to get a couple of hundred thousand more users, and maybe the developers will get the hint!

Regards,

Alex.

[:)]

Micheal
Can I ask you the same question that steve so honestly replied. Why don't you just use the logic score instead. Mind you steve said he had been used to finale from day one and perhaps he did not want to take the learning curve with logic ? If I understood correctly.

Hang in there alex, this is getting interesting.

@R.K. said:

Micheal
Can I ask you the same question that steve so honestly replied. Why don't you just use the logic score instead. Mind you steve said he had been used to finale from day one and perhaps he did not want to take the learning curve with logic ? If I understood correctly.

Hang in there alex, this is getting interesting.

Yep, I'm hanging.....

[[:|]]

@Lasse78 said:

Is it possible to play the VI samples or hook up Gigastudio with NOTION?

As far as I know this is not possible since the user definable options for the NOTION program are extremely deficient so far. (If you like, have a look at http://www.notionmusic.com/downloads/pdf/EMReview.pdf)

All in all an interesting discussion so far about the (relative) merits of sequencer vs. notation programs. As I see things, we live basically in different worlds when working – predominantly – either with notation programs or sequencers: Notation means producing scores and parts to be performed by real musicians whereas sequencing is aimed at audio production for film, TV, CD etc. as its final result. Insofar it's no wonder that these worlds are different: Notation programs are deficient when it comes to audio qualities (as needed for audio rendition) and sequencers are weak when it comes to scoring (as needed for musicians, particularly in modern music – not to speak of publishing as sheet music!).

Nevertheless, future development will necessarily go to include more features from either side – in the end possibly resulting in unified tools for creating music. In my opinion, the NOTION program [rather stupid name for a NOtaTION program!] is on the right track: Everything what you can do in a sequencer is – or should be! – representable and executable with conventional notational symbols and terms as developed over centuries (including ours) of notating music.

Hansen

@R.K. said:

Micheal
Can I ask you the same question that steve so honestly replied. Why don't you just use the logic score instead. Mind you steve said he had been used to finale from day one and perhaps he did not want to take the learning curve with logic ? If I understood correctly.

Hang in there alex, this is getting interesting.

R.K.

For me the answer to that question is about the way those programs do what I need them to do. I am a composer or orchestral, chamber, and other concert music. The notation side of Logic simply does not provide me with anything close to the level of options that I need for notation. I could list many problems, but its treament of tuplets alone would not work for me.

Michael

I have a similar setup for my current pro edition, but hopefully I'll be getting VI soon to replace gigastudio. Currently I route like this: Finale > Cubase > Gigastudio (via gigateleport). The main problem I have is with finale not being able to address more than 4 channels(4 layers, 1 per channel) without constant patch changes. I got arround this with Opus 1 by using the keyswitch patches and manually entering them into the score as grace notes which I could later hide for printing. But now that I have Pro edition, the patches are so large that a single channel can't contain all the articulations that I want. I'm hoping VI will solve this issue for me, at least in part (It's looking like I may need more PCs).

I just managed to scrape together what I need for the Orch Cube Standard Library, so hopefully in a few weeks I'll know if it helps or not lol.

@michael.matthews said:

The notation side of Logic simply does not provide me with anything close to the level of options that I need for notation. I could list many problems, but its treament of tuplets alone would not work for me.

I second this. I make much of my living from music preparation work and could never use Logic for professional output. It does a nice job of creating a reasonable score from a sequence, but nowhere close to anything I would want to put in front of a musician in the studio or on the bandstand.

It would be rather nice if Logic, or Cubase were reconfigured to present scores both in construction and printout, to a Lilypond standard. Then we'd get the best of both worlds. (Sequencer vs notation). Surely it can't be that hard, or unprofitable.

Alex.

Robert:

The solution to your problem with the number of MIDI channels available on each staff in Finale is simply to put in hidden channel change markings using Finale's note expression tool. You make the marking hidden with either a menu command or by selecting the text and typing command-shift-h and you give the marking a MIDI meaning by clicking on the playback tab and using the flip menu that appears in the resultant dialog box. If you do this you could, theoretically, have 128 MIDI channels available in each of Finale's 4 layers.

Alex:

The problem is that world-wide demand for sophisticated music notation software is such that it has supported the continuing development of only two applications (Sibelius and Finale) made by small companies with relatively limited resources. Sibelius has been acquired by Avid (of which Digidesign is a division) so that there is the possibility that greater resources will be available fo its future development. Avid's acquisition of Sibelius leads, as I said in an earlier posting, to speculation that MakeMusic (the company that makes Finale) might be acquired by Apple or Mark of the Unicorn - - a situation that would make available significantly enhanced resources for Finale's future development. In other words, there appears to be some reason to hope that both applications will develop in the direction that we all would like.

Steve,
I hear you. I was hoping when Sib went to version 4, we'd get hosting, and changes to take advantage of new sample library formats. The response i got to an email asking if this was going to happen, wasn't favourable. Sibelius told me they'd need to rebuild the entire program, and they had no intention of doing that in the near future.

I still hope they get this together, but i've been hoping for a long time now. (Same with Cubase's score component. It's one of the reasons i went to another program, as i got so frustrated with Steinberg's lack of interest in refining this aspect of their programs. Trouble is, the others weren't any better, and i'm near to switching back to Nuendo, as the rest of the program seems better overall, than what i'm currently using.)

I've also had a look at notion, but i'm not sure they get it either.

And Overture 4 is about to be released for MAC, so i'll probably d/l the demo, and try that as well. At least Don at Geniesoft is trying to give us what we want. Which is not just my wishlist, but judging by comments on their forum, the aspiration of a lot of composers with notation as their working prefernce.

We can but wait, and do the best with what we have now.

Regards,

Alex.

@stevesong said:

Robert:

The solution to your problem with the number of MIDI channels available on each staff in Finale is simply to put in hidden channel change markings using Finale's note expression tool. You make the marking hidden with either a menu command or by selecting the text and typing command-shift-h and you give the marking a MIDI meaning by clicking on the playback tab and using the flip menu that appears in the resultant dialog box. If you do this you could, theoretically, have 128 MIDI channels available in each of Finale's 4 layers.

Yes, I know this. You can use the expression tool to send just about any midi message possible, actually, so if you had the time and patience you really could sequence that way. It is simply too unweidly to be used. Realistically if I'm loading an articulation per channel in gigastudio I'd have to channel change almost every note for every instrument. Plus, with this method I can't hear playback with midi thru while in the actual composing stage; I have to send a channel change message to get to my other patches(something I can't do easily with my studiologic controller). With VI, I'm hoping to be able to use speed control and keyswitches to accomplish everything accross one midi channel in an easier fasion.

Very Interesting. the mastery level of everyone with their own program is undoubtfull. So I will maintain my grounds and indeed reasure anyone. I am indeed have found logic's score not only sufficient, but have no problems in what instruments to use , how many instruments to use, The amount of way's to use to write with, weather its playing and then notating, or the amounts of keyboards beeing used. This sequencing program is by far the most realistic in playback and feel. the notation lookes maybe is not as good as finale or sibelius or notion, but its acceptable enough comparing the old day's of hand written copyiest transcription. i have no problem with triplets, especialy when their is a grid on the midi side that one can fraction in thirds for speed inputs and mirror notes, move each note by mouse in any direction. Zoom the program back far enough to see the entire picture instead of being in the middle of pages scrolling through continously in midst. By far the composition level is at best and far more ongoing by speed, moving by pace. The manual was written by a professor at mozartian college, who uses logic's score himself for school and composition. I will admit at this level, I had to create my own score styles fit to my own needs and style of writing, There are no books at this level of logic's score. And frankly and personaly the notation looks is bigger and can be configured to any needs. And can be read even clearer by anyone. I will never go back to any notation program, because they can not fulfill all aspects of composing , recording, Audio, orchestrating with playback feel. The idea of sequencing programs cannot fulfil notation is correct with the exception of logic. Its the only program for those who need to run a full blown studio and use the notation side as well.

I respect anyone's expert mastery of their own program. And I have no complaints what so-ever using logic with VSL or any side of the recording notation medium. This combination produces music and its notation alongside freely with no trouble or complaints.

RK,
I agree with your point, of mastery. And i'll be frank, coming from parchment to Cubase to Logic, the parchment i know, Cubase i did too, but Logic is still a learning curve for me. So, it's fair to say my skills in Logic are lesser, which in itself brings an element of frustration.

Having said that, i will stick to my guns too. [[:|]]

I still think the major DAW's would benefit a great deal from a more active and professionally minded approach to scoring within the program.

Now i'm waiting for you to accuse me of being old fashioned.......

Regards,

Alex.
[:)]