Notation software

[pianowillbebach]

I recently heard about Forte Notation (https://www.fortenotation.com/en/) and since they're running a promo, I decided to download it. I'll check back in with my thoughts, but wanted to hear what you all have to say about it?

[pianowillbebach]

Update: It's like musescore but with an MS Word-style toolbar!

[pianowillbebach]

They also have this program called Bandora that seems like band in a box...anyone tried it? https://bandora.com/en/

[Trexms]

Hi, I recently read about Sibelius vS Musescore in this Blog https://musescore.es/
(in Spanish) But I'm not quite sure.
Do you think it's a good option to use an open source software if you want to get the best possible quality?

thanks

[merlyn]

Do you think it's a good option to use an open source software if you want to get the best possible quality?

For a notation program I would think the measure of quality is what the resulting score looks like. How's this?

https://musescore.com/user/1982711/scores/1263241

I don't see how Musescore being open source would have any bearing on what scores produced with it look like.

[wireman]

For a notation program I would think the measure of quality is what the resulting score looks like. How's this?

https://musescore.com/user/1982711/scores/1263241

I don't see how Musescore being open source would have any bearing on what scores produced with it look like.

What is C7maj/B ?

[GilesAnt]

It indicates that the Cmaj7 chord its on top of a bass note of B. In other words the chord is in 3rd inversion.

It should be Cmaj7 not C7maj.

[RichardT]

There are lots of dodgy and plain wrong chord symbols in that example!

If you’re considering a paid-for piece of software, I’d strongly recommend Dorico over Sibelius (I can’t speak about Finale). The quality of output is superb and often not a single manual tweak is necessary to achieve it.

Musescore is good, and I’ve used it a little. If you’re producing scores for yourself it’s fine; but if you’re going to put them in front of professional players I’d go for Dorico. The differences are small but Dorico scores just have an edge in clarity and quality that makes them really attractive to see.

[GilesAnt]

There are lots of dodgy and plain wrong chord symbols in that example!

Now you mention it, yes I agree. I also agree Dorico is pretty much state of the art at the moment

[wireman]

I have been following Dorico but I know from experience that you have to use notation software a lot to know where it falls down for your use cases. For example Sibelius could not do custom (wavy) ties last time I tried and it did not have one of the most common symbols used in organ pedalling.

Having said that, I just purchased an update to get my Sibelius 7 to the latest version with a perpetual license. I will probably update it when I get a new PC in the next few months.

[merlyn]

There are lots of dodgy and plain wrong chord symbols in that example!

To input chords in Musescore the relevant note is selected and 'Ctrl-k' is pressed. It's then possible to type in the chord. So the chord symbols are down to whoever put this score together -- not the software.

Chord symbols are not standardised -- I know what chord C7maj refers to even if Cmaj7 is more widely used. CΔ7 is also used.

The only chord I see that is wrong is in the second bar -- it should be Dm7/C.

Anyway Musescore is good enough for most things -- including professional players.

[RichardT]

There are lots of dodgy and plain wrong chord symbols in that example!

To input chords in Musescore the relevant note is selected and 'Ctrl-k' is pressed. It's then possible to type in the chord. So the chord symbols are down to whoever put this score together -- not the software.

Chord symbols are not standardised -- I know what chord C7maj refers to even if Cmaj7 is more widely used. CΔ7 is also used.

The only chord I see that is wrong is in the second bar -- it should be Dm7/C.

Anyway Musescore is good enough for most things -- including professional players.

Yes, sure, the chord symbols are down to human error not the software!
Have a look at bars 32 and 34 for a couple more errors - plus the whole approach to diminished chords is non-standard.

[GilesAnt]

It is a little perverse to write C#dim7/G when you could just say Gdim7

[wireman]

I take the point that the chords were most likely user entered.

And as for the penultimate bar I have no idea what chord I would use, the original has the B in the bass continuing, it will "feel" like G7 towards the end of the bar resolving to the C.

[merlyn]

Here's Bach's original :



Some fairly horrendous notational practices like splitting a bar over two lines.

A couple of things strike me about it :

* ii V I everywhere. Charlie Parker and Bach agree about that.

* Voice leading comes before chord symbols. The diminished chords come about from voice leading to resolve to a specific melody note.

e.g C/G(E on top) F#dim7/G(F# on top) C/G(G on top)

or consonant wonky consonant

All the diminsheds sound wonky, then resolve with smooth voice leading.

The penultimate chord functionally is a V chord so we end up with the fairly nutty G7/C, but the voice leading makes sense of that.

[RichardT]

I think G7/C is exactly right!

[GilesAnt]

It does show the limitations of trying to use chord symbols for everything.

Which Philistine added pedal markings I wonder!

[merlyn]

It is a little perverse to write C#dim7/G when you could just say Gdim7

Is C#dim7/G ever right? I would think sometimes it is, like when we're in Dm.


We're heading for Dm, so C#dim7 is diatonic in D harmonic minor. The G before C#dim7 is diatonic in D melodic minor. Using the functional harmony IV = ii and V = viidim we have ... another ii V I. And to get to the G (IV of Dm) Bach used Am D7 -- a ii V in G.

[GilesAnt]

Maybe a tad pedantic there merlyn, but of course that's what we are here for