QuickScribe - what are the other options?

hgmoses · Post by **hgmoses** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:12 pm

For anyone who wants to create an authentic looking score, QuickScribe is clearly not the answer. I use Finale and Sibelius regularly, but long for the ability to view my files as realistic music notation (with clef options, and dynamic elements) while still in DP.

QUESTION: Has anyone found a work-around for this issue? Are there any plug-in notation options? Anything I am missing?

My suspicion is that MOTU does not see that music notation is an important part of the product demographically. However, a really good notation side of the product would revolutionize the way I use DP.

Your comments and advise are always welcome.

HG

jstaczek · Post by **jstaczek** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:15 pm

You're not missing anything. Quickscribe is as good as it gets. You may be interested in this, however:

http://www.notionmusic.com

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:54 am

Yes-- there are a few threads about QS-- aka: the futility utility.

Notation in general is often the weakest aspect of any DAW. The lack of font switching, phrase markings, and the general juvenile look of it makes it wholly unsuitable for preparing scores for quality publishing. It may make a fine guide score for an engineer, however.

QS is a great for certain types of MIDI editing. I often grow weary of reading the MIDI Editor colored bars and just want to read some notes! I like being able to edit non adjacent tracks easily, so I try not to think of QS as an end to a means, but more a means to an end.

Notion, however, is very well thought out and appears to have been created by humans by humans. It's such a refreshing concept. This and Sibelius managed to outdo Finale at its own game, but Finale is slowly catching on.

I'm currently having to enter larger projects in DP for speed in a template that matches that to be used in Finale. Then it takes two or three different SMF imports to nail all the proper quantizations-- no one import has ever worked. Gets to be a pain.

Something else that is worth noting is DVZ. It's not out yet, but evidently its samples were all done at 192k, and however it is you sequence your parts it has an optional scoring tool that goes so much further to create your score, adding in certain articulations from the moment you import, saving you hours and hours. Audio Impressions is the name of the company and the utility to be used with their libraries is called DVZ RealTime Orchestrator. Can't wait to see this thing hit the shelves-- probably after NAMM in January.

http://www.audioimpressions.com/products_dvz_rt.htm

musnoz · Post by **musnoz** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:53 am

Yes-- there are a few threads about QS-- aka: the futility utility.

Indeed ••” a thread of mine :
http://www.unicornation.com/phpBB2/view ... uickscribe
(We could add : grace notes and efficients shortcut keys)

Notation in general is often the weakest aspect of any DAW. The lack of font switching, phrase markings, and the general juvenile look of it makes it wholly unsuitable for preparing scores for quality publishing. It may make a fine guide score for an engineer, however.

I have to disagree : Cubase and Logic have great well stocked score editors , but Quickscribe is the weakest editor of DP.
(And yet, just five or six functions could be enough to make QS a great score editor.)

Notion, however, is very well thought out and appears to have been created by humans by humans. It's such a refreshing concept. This and Sibelius managed to outdo Finale at its own game, but Finale is slowly catching on.

I'm afraid Notion (or Finale or Sibelius or Overture ) is not the solution to the Quickscribe problem : MOTU must make a decision to improve QS.

(I have the demo of Notion and I am very disappointed by the way of working of the software).
Sorry

hgmoses · Post by **hgmoses** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 5:24 am

Frodo, I took a look at the DVZ RealTime Orchestrator - thanks. However, having just sunk $10K in the Vienna Instruments, I'm not thrilled with the idea of yet a new sample collection. I am quite familiar with the Notion program, and am not really that moved by it's format. When I last spoke to them, you could not even export a MIDI file from their platform (that may have changed by now.)

I have followed many of the threads regarding QS, and it seems that my complaints are not the only ones.

I hired a programmer to do some research 18 months ago regarding this issue. He contacted EVERY known manufacturer of MIDI and notation software in the US and Europe regarding our specific needs. Upon my request, he approached MOTU about our Institute being willing to either foot the bill, or enter into a cooperative agreement with MOTU to create a high quality notation plug in. He was basically told the only way that could happen was if they made their source code available - and they were not interested in that.

As a composer of orchestral, choral and instrumental scores I relish the thought of what could be accomplished in studios IF the software were not so archaic. I understand that MOTU has to pay attention to their market, which I suspect is not dominated to a large extent by musicians who read music. Nevertheless, I believe there is a market for professional composer software. I simply have not found anything that I believe qualifies. Alas...

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:48 am

I don't disagree with respect to QS shortcomings. Logic, Cubase, and Nuendo all have *better* notation features than DP does, but none of them address half of what I need.

But what does a person do in the meantime?

Finale and Sibelius may not be the solution to DP-QS, but I have no appreciable expectations of QS as a heavy duty notation device, and therefore do not allow it to get in my way when serious engraving is needed. Beyond just moving notes around quickly, QS is of woeful little use. Even there, I can't even think of it so much as a notation device as a different sort of MIDI graphic editor that comes in handy at times.

I'm not sure what it will take for MOTU to overhaul QS-- or even if it is all that big of a priority for them. It may simply continue to be counted among DP's better-than-nothing features even as Intel this very week is is talking about an 80-core computer embedded with its own RAM in 3-4 years. Seems so ironic -- better computers, same old QS which has changed SO very little since its inception.

Mr_Clifford · Post by **Mr_Clifford** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:12 am

musnoz wrote:I have to disagree : Cubase and Logic have great well stocked score editors , but Quickscribe is the weakest editor of DP.

True, the Cubase score editor is a quite a bit better than Quick Scribe on DP, but after almost killing myself to try and get several scores ready (including parts) on Cubase for a 50 piece orchestra recording back in January, I couldn't get down to the music shop fast enough to get Sibelius. I've since done several big orchestral sessions and now I shudder to think that I ever did it on Cubase. It just doesn't cut it as a professional notation tool.

Of course, once I no longer needed the scoring facilities of Cubase, I made the only logical step and switched over to DP for my sequencer/audio editor.

richardein · Post by **richardein** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:14 am

A great solution, of course, is for their to be a full-fledged finale/sibelius compatible notation window in DP. Failing that, a decent sequencer in Finale/Sibelius would be nearly as welcome!

Notation is a serious issue. The current notation standards - the piano roll - is way too difficult for those of us who read music fluently, although it is easy to learn. However, standard music notation doesn't adequately address the new techniques and parameters available via MIDI and digital audio.

Obviously color would help, but the truth is that as much as I'm desperate for acceptable music notation in DP, that's a stopgap. Notation has to evolve to mee the new musical demands.

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:25 am

One other thing to consider here---

This forum is loaded with issues regarding bounce to disk dropouts, FW clogs, CPU spikes, latency, VI's, and so many other issues that it just may be too much to ask of DP to deal with the rigors of notation display and screen redraws eloquently-- all that on top of staying in sync? Eeeesh!

Honestly? I just pulled an all-nighter working on a score with Finale 2006-- and even with no more than DLS loaded it still felt a scant sluggish. That sort of responsiveness is certainly not something DP needs.

dosuna11 · Post by **dosuna11** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

For now I think get the best software to do the job/cross platform. SMF and 1:1:000 audio files can go anywhere. I still have an Atari Hybrid Arts which does some things that no software I've seen over the years can do. So I SMF import, perform the task and export out when I need that. My last project went from DP 3.11 to Pro tools HD on a OS 9.2 Mac to a G5 dual 10.39 DP 4.2 to an Imac G5 10.46 DP 4.61 and some of the charts were Quickscribe and then later Sibelius 2 and 3. Sibelius still is not so good at SMF import. Notator was really good at that. My friend still swears by Passport. I do understand the goodness that could come out of the studio when they all agree and appear in one platform.

musnoz · Post by **musnoz** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:28 am

If Quickscribe could provide half of what I need, I would be very happy.

It is not the purpose of QS to be nearly like a gigantic Finale or Sibelius, or even Mosaic. I believe many users don••™t expect that.
What I really want for QS is an efficient composing tool, not an engraving tool ••” I use Sibelius every day and I am a « Finale trainer ».

Frodo, « just moving notes around quickly » is a pain because of a lack of efficient shortcuts.
Some rhythm values should have been added inside QS long ago ••” tuplets, double whole notes, 128th notes, grace notes.
Composite time signature is useful for those who would take the inconsiderate risk to compose something else that 4/4 or 6/8.
QS decides which clef will be good for your score : what happens if I want in the midlle of the staff, 10 measures in another clef ?
Four voices are not a luxury for a total freedom to replace notes.

Think free in Quickscribe (that's What I Want)

Michel

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 3:55 am

musnoz wrote:If Quickscribe could provide half of what I need, I would be very happy.

It is not the purpose of QS to be nearly like a gigantic Finale or Sibelius, or even Mosaic. I believe many users don••™t expect that.
What I really want for QS is an efficient composing tool, not an engraving tool ••” I use Sibelius every day and I am a « Finale trainer ».

Frodo, « just moving notes around quickly » is a pain because of a lack of efficient shortcuts.
Some rhythm values should have been added inside QS long ago ••” tuplets, double whole notes, 128th notes, grace notes.
Composite time signature is useful for those who would take the inconsiderate risk to compose something else that 4/4 or 6/8.
QS decides which clef will be good for your score : what happens if I want in the midlle of the staff, 10 measures in another clef ?
Four voices are not a luxury for a total freedom to replace notes.

Think free in Quickscribe (that's What I Want)

Michel

No, QS is quite a few blocks away from Finale or Sibelius (to put it mildly), which is why I years ago I had little choice but to jump into Finale (there was no Sibelius at the time).

To list all the things that QS doesn't do which it ought to do would take forever. It would be faster to list all the things that it does do! Then, there is the long list of those features each of us would like to see.

But there are some nuts-and-bolts basics which are shamefully absent. I mean, no one is expecting to do any aleatoric writing with QS, but you are right-- for the kind of production tool DP is supposed to be, QS is just not------------

well,

I'm probably a little too tired at the moment to say more... except that my copy of Finale 2007 just arrived today!!

Mr_Clifford · Post by **Mr_Clifford** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:38 am

I agree with Frodo that there's more pressing issues in DP 5 than beefing up the scoring functions.

However, like musnoz said, it would be good to at least be able to compose quickly in QuickScribe. There's certain things like complex counterpoint etc. that are really just better nutted out with the dots right in front of you.

When I have a computer fast enough to run DP & Sibelius at the same time (mine works now but it's a bit sluggish) I'd love to see some sort of copy & paste supported by the two programs where you could at least grab phrases etc. and drag them across instead of having to export everything as MIDI files all the time (only to have Sibelius mis-interpret the rhythms - but that's another gripe altogether).

musnoz · Post by **musnoz** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:16 pm

Yes precisely, if we list all the functions of Quickscribe, we realize that there are many very sophisticated features, but lots of elementary features are missing at roll call.

A few years ago, I met Michael Welsh from MOTU and talked with him about fundamental features missing in Quickscribe. I don••™t know why but I insisted on enharmonics and in the next update, guess what : enharmonics were included in our kind score editor, in a very brilliant way ••” that is what I love at MOTU.

So although the number of priorities, the genius MOTU (I am not ironic••¦) can deal with an improved Quickscribe.

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:59 pm

It's a delicate topic when assessing all of this....

At least at one time, there were a lot of musicians who were not fluent at score reading. Many orchestrators of non-classical music continue to write their scores at concert pitch and avoid using movable clefs. The graphic elements of DAWs has leveled the *playing* field (literally) for those who don't read music.

It just makes me wonder whether this notion played a big part in determining the priorities of a DAW. Not being fluent at score reading was a hurdle for some until the DAW arrived. Doing a sequence and just having the notes appear in QS was an epiphany for so many electronic musicians. I remembered hearing users say often how amazed they were to see their score-- "did I write THAT?", "is THAT what it looks like on paper?".

But for those who came to the computer from the world of score reading, the *basics* are a lot less basic, and what's missing in QS is more glaring.

I think somewhere inside we all believe that QS can handle more. Much of what we'd ask of it would be minor-- expanded palettes, for a start.

Musnoz, you mentioned composite time sigs. That's a great idea, especially since it's quite commonplace these days. I've seen scores done by film composers who are satisfied with having meter changes every bar when a 3/8 3/8 2/8 pattern is the only way to do it. How nice it would be to write 3+3+2/4! The conductor could simplify his baton pattern, and musicians would have less eye clutter.

But I should also wonder whether DP wasn't considered an end more than a means to an end: if you've gotten your track recorded in DP, considerations for redoing it don't appear to be part of the plan. At that point, DP becomes the sketch pad to sort out a piece of music-- but then you wind up back in Finale or Sibelius to put your new masterpiece on the music stands of live musicians.

For me, that's the disconnect-- and of course, the product is marketed to the masses as the tool that can virtually do it *all*. This may be true for most DAW users, but it only serves as another example where the needs of advanced users, namely composers as opposed to engineers, get the short end of the stick.

MOTUnation.com

QuickScribe - what are the other options?

QuickScribe - what are the other options?

further ideas regarding QuickScribe