Klarinet Archive - Posting 000588.txt from 1996/03

From: "Daniel A. Paprocki" <dap@-----.US>
Subj: music publishing software
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 09:50:39 -0500

I found this on the Music-ed list server. Thought it would be of interest.

Dan

>Dwight Mikkelsen writes:
>Dear Everyone,
>
>Hi! This is from Dwight Mikkelsen. A few weeks back I noticed some postings
>concerning music writing software. Since I've copied about 35,000 pages of
>music in the past two years on computer, this is a subject with which I am
>familiar.
>
>I am the lead copyist for Sony Pictures and I have personally worked with
>Encore, Mosaic and Music Publisher. Four of the copyists I regularly hire
>use Finale and one uses Errato. Here is a summary of my observations.
>
>GENERAL
>All music writing software requires (if you want any kind of facility and
>speed) the use of QuicKeys. (My best Finale guy has over a hundred keys
>strokes in his Finale Set.) What takes a long time to write by hand is quick
>with the computer and vice versa. In other words note heads, stems and beams
>are slow by hand and quick on the computer; written words, page formatting
>and spacing are quick by hand but slow on the computer. Irregular bar
>numbering (lettered bars, double bar numbers, etc.) is a problem with all of
>the programs. It seems that none of the writers of these programs, except
>for Music Publisher, ever consulted a music copyist. Consequently, when
>using any of them, one has to find ways to circumvent the program.
>
>MUSIC PUBLISHER
>Upside - without a doubt, absolutely the best designed music writing
>software ever - nothing comes close. very beautiful (subjective); very
>quick; very easy to use; very easy to learn; all work is done in page layout;
>very fast; articulations, dynamics and slurs are easily entered and easy to
>work with; quite a few were sold and it's not too hard to find someone who
>has it; text writing aspect is great and versatile.
>Downside - The company went out of business in 1991 (it came with a separate
>piece of hardware and you'll have to search a bit to find one. It's called
>the Presto keypad and I bought each of mine for $25; I got the software from
>a friend for free); only the latest version (2.5.2) is bug-free; may not work
>on a Power Mac; cannot add or delete staves from a score; part extraction is
>tricky (it's much easier to copy and paste); bar numbering is not very
>versatile; time signatures are the same size as the staff.
>
>FINALE
>Upside - It can do anything; the company seems to be dedicated to producing
>the best software available; the company seems to listen to its users; chord
>symbol entry is good (not great) and versatile; time signature is larger than
>the staff; more publishers use Finale than anything else.
>Downside - Long learning curve; rather complex software; extensive reliance
>on mouse actions; does not easily handle bar numbers; is not very good with
>midi files; requires a fast computer (at least a Quad 630 with 8 mgs ram) for
>any kind of workability; mediocre look (this is subjective); In general
>Finale is very versatile but very, very labor oriented; part extraction
>yields problems with slurs and dynamics and requires too many actions; slow
>entry of dynamics and articulations.
>
>ENCORE
>Upside - Rather quick learning curve, somewhat intuitive; looks better that
>Finale (subjective); very good with midi files; can do 99% of the music
>you'll ever need to copy.
>Downside - A bit labor oriented; some of the default chord symbols are badly
>notated and you can't change the defaults (but you can enter them by typing);
>time signatures are the same size as the staff, bar numbering is not very
>versatile; page formatting could be easier; part extraction is easy but
>you'll run into problems with slurs and dynamics; requires at least 50
>QuicKeys key strokes; slow entry of dynamics and articulations; tricky to
>make slurs look corrrect; requires some circumventing of program to get a
>correctly copied part; text writing has some bugs; titling is cumbersome and
>a bit buggy.
>
>MOSAIC
>Upside - similar to Encore; on the new version (has it been released yet?)
>time signatures are larger than the staff.
>Downside - in general the same as Encore except for: chord symbol entry is
>slightly better designed; requires a great deal of set-up time (before you
>start copying); even though it's made by Mark of the Unicorn, you cannot
>directly transfer files from Performer (is this stupid, or what?)
>
>ERRATO
>Upside - can be quick and easy to use; great part extraction feature; geared
>toward composing (but not copying); the witer of the program seems to listen
>to the users; bar numbering aspect is excellent; will handle 95% of the music
>you'll ever need to copy; time signatures are larger than the staffs
>Downside - PC based (yuch!) so it's rather complex on the user end and you
>can't see the final product until you print; requires a separate piece of
>hardware (this may actually be a plus-point); for real speed you'll need a
>tremendous amout of QuicKeys-like key strokes; the worst looking software
>(subjective).
>
>GENERAL
>Among the 50 or so full-time copyists in LA, the standards are quite high and
>far above anywhere else. Some of the music copied here is simply beautiful.
> The best hand copying is still preferrable to the best computer work. This
>is an irrefutable fact. Because I work in this environment, many of the
>things that bug me wouldn't be noticed by most musicians. Computers
>offer a
>number of options not available to the analog (hand) copyist; transposition
>and part extraction being the most notable.
>
>Well, that's a general overview (I could write pages on each of these
>programs!) I welcome any of your thoughts and/or comments. I receive my
>personal e-mail at NoteSlingr@-----.com
>Yours,
>Dwight Mikkelsen
>
> # # # #
>
>

******************************************************************************

Daniel A. Paprocki
dap@-----.us

******************************************************************************