Overture 4 - finally a notation program for US!

[Alan Lastufka]

Geniesoft announced the Feature List for Overture 4 on their forum. Its great to see a notation developer finally writing some features for users of sample libraries and soft-synths. Overture 4 will be a complete VST host for up to 256 VSTi's and four FX, and has a key editor/midi data controller lane integrated right into the notation/score editor view!!!

In addition, the articulation markings can send keyswitches/program changes/controller data making them actually useful and not just pretty to look at.

There's like a bagillion other features you can check out on their forum announcement, but I'm pretty excited abou tthe idea of loading up Kontakt 2 right inside my notation software so I can hear everything decent while scoring and then export to my sequencer for final editing, but with most of the controller data and KSes already in place. :)

[newmewzikboy]

well, are you going to keep us drooling? senD US A LINK!!! AGG!

[Joseph Burrell]

http://geniesoft.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=942

There's a thread on the forum for feature list discussion if you have any questions. Please don't post in the announcement thread.

[newmewzikboy]

"Enter MIDI data mode and the notes appear as a piano roll in the measures. Note start times durations and velocities can be dragged. Above each measure is a small MIDI data area where controller data, pitch bend, tempos, etc can be entered, changed, or erased. You can choose the Type of data to be edited as well as the density when entering the data. Extremely powerful for those using notation with VSTi’s and want complete control over the MIDI data directly on the score. Another great thing about this feature is the ability to edit multiple tracks without having to use any dropdowns or menus. So if you are editing Velocity, you can edit it on many tracks at once since all tracks currently displayed on the score can be edited in one session easily. Non-VSTi users can hide this menu or display it as needed."

They dont say how it can be entered....I hope they have a DRAW feature to draw controller information rather than the stupid ratio or ramp features of FINALE.

The features are truly incredible for playback. There are some features in FINALE that I wish I knew OT4 has...such as being able to check ranges, ties, accidentals, and my favorite canon plugin. I also wish they had some scripting capabilities. But the integration to the libraries and the keysw ability is rich! I will end up buying it anyway...

[Joseph Burrell]

You just draw in the controller data on the score. Draw in expression or modulation CC just like you would in a sequencer directly from the score. Edit velocity, pitch bend, the tempo track, all the same way. Its few clicks away and since its from the score, multiple tracks can be edited right then easily.

And the keyswitching is a godsend, trust me.

Take a look: Overture 4 Screenshot (http://www.lostandlonging.com/Overture4Screen.jpg)

Shows velocity editing from the score.

[newmewzikboy]

The program looks like it was written with me in mind! I had played with it in school on the mac years ago, but its definately improved.

If I can edit multiple staves in one MIDI window, similar to Cubase, man...thats just fantastic. like i said the VSTi and library integration is a god send. No more futzing around with trying to get keysw's just right. Multiple articulation loads on an instrument. Fantastic. Its like an extention of Gold and GPO! Its strength is MIDI for sure, and thats my #1 priority when I write.

In Finale, I constantly use: Scoring and Arranging; TG Composer tools; mass edit/utilities incl duration estimation, so I was hoping they will provide something there. For session work, the score doesn't have to be perfect; but for other submissions, I need the full publishing capabilities that FINALE has to offer. I suppose I will have to keep using both. So, I wonder if MUSICXML will cover...

[Alan Lastufka]

The program looks like it was written with me in mind!
Exactly what I was thinking. ;)

[Daryl]

Are there any examples of what the notation looks like? I wouldn't bet on it being any better than Cubase etc. However, if the input is more of a notation type input than a sequencer, I can see some people using it. For me to be persuaded it would have to be either better than Nuendo for sequencing or Sibelius for notation; anything in the middle is just a fudge.

D

[Alan Lastufka]

Are there any examples of what the notation looks like? I wouldn't bet on it being any better than Cubase etc.

I made this (http://www.lastlibs.com/selections-01.pdf) in Overture 3 SE, so full Overture 4 can only be better! ;)

For me to be persuaded it would have to be either better than Nuendo for sequencing or Sibelius for notation; anything in the middle is just a fudge.

This the notation of Sibelius (only much easier to use (I compared Overture 3 SE and Sibelius demo from their site)) and the sequencing of Nuendo (well, I only had SX 3, close enough) in one program, which I find extremely convenient. Then exporting into a full sequencer for finishing touches will be the final stage or skipped as Overture seems to be able to do all the controller data needed and KSing needed. :)

[Joseph Burrell]

Daryl, the program is primarly a notation program and always has been. However, it contains a sequencer type Graphic Window in which you can edit note lengths, enter midi controllers, etc. same as any sequencer. No it doesn't contain all the bells and whistles a high end audio application does, but if you feel more comfortable with a notation program but want all the midi editing capabilites of a sequencer, its one tight integrated package.

[robertb]

Alan, I agree. This update really reflects the direction I believe music composition software needs to go. When all the buzz over the latest version of Finale started, I actually considered jumping on the bandwagon. :eek: Glad I didn't! :cool:

[Joseph Burrell]

Some more screens of the features at work. Proof is in the pudding, so they say.

http://geniesoft.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=948

[e_SEB]

Are there any examples of what the notation looks like? I wouldn't bet on it being any better than Cubase etc. However, if the input is more of a notation type input than a sequencer, I can see some people using it. For me to be persuaded it would have to be either better than Nuendo for sequencing or Sibelius for notation; anything in the middle is just a fudge.


That's key for me too. I tried Overture a few years back, but soon it was scrapped because it was incapable of much beyond elementary notation.

Sibelius did the job--more or less.

These playback features are nice, but only on the assumption I'll be able to NOTATE what I WANT to playback.

[Daryl]

I made this (http://www.lastlibs.com/selections-01.pdf) in Overture 3 SE, so full Overture 4 can only be better! ;)



I don't mean to be offensive, but I wouldn't use a notation program where the output looks like this. Like everyone else I would love to be able to do it all from one program and it may happen some day, but at the moment it seems as if sequencer and notation will have to be done in different programs.

D

[Joseph Burrell]

I love people who speak of that which you haven't even used. Wait for the demo gents and then speak your mind.

[e_SEB]

I love people who speak of that which you haven't even used. Wait for the demo gents and then speak your mind.

I reread every message in this thread. I didn't see a single (negative) judgement made on a product as yet unreleased.

PS Edit: I personally intend to be in line early for the demo. If its notation aspects are sufficiently improved, Geniesoft and EWQL both can be expecting some money from me soon.

[Herman Witkam]

I don't mean to be offensive, but I wouldn't use a notation program where the output looks like this. Like everyone else I would love to be able to do it all from one program and it may happen some day, but at the moment it seems as if sequencer and notation will have to be done in different programs.

D

By the look of it the character set isn't the best one on the market, but features such as VST hosting are equally valuable as a good font!

[Joseph Burrell]

Sorry, its difficult keeping my emotions in check lately since there's so much excitement around the product and so many naysayers as well. What to do? Laugh it off, I guess.

At any rate, one must understand the ideaology behind the program. It was decided that instead of focusing on A+ Engraver this and that publisher font type gobbledy gook, that instead the main drive of this version of the program would be PERFORMANCE. Has it reached that? On many levels yes. There are still improvements to be made to the program and hopefully we can get this sucker out the door as a stable program and focus on the future of notation programs.

I really can't comment on score output since I don't particularly care what mine looks like since there's not an ice cubes chance in Hades that anyone would ever need a printed score of mine. I care about the performance and maintaining as much editing within one application as possible and being able to do this editing as painlessly as possible as well. I think we've attained that goal.

The other stuff's just gravy to me. There's still some exciting features that I hope can be implemented this go round like easy midi routing to and from the program (and not getting in the way of the interface or functionality of the instrument definitions) that allows recording of VSTi's when using midi tools such as Vocal Control, Word Builder, the Performance Tool, and Maestro Tools, et all.

I'm really looking forward to that since it will allow you to use those tools and still record the audio inside Overture, something no other notation program can lay claim to at this point.

All things considered, I think its moving the right direction, however I understand the need for all these spiffy fonts and things. But I think there's also a market shift that demands a program that performs on the midi end, rather than being a burden.

Nuff Said.

[davecos]

I used Passport Encore for a film score that had a small string ensemble and they had no problem reading the parts years ago. I think people are getting a little, hmm, I dunno, obsessive compulsive about the minute differences between Finale and Overture. From my experiences, I don't see a huge disparity between Finale and Overture as far as output is concerned. I DO notice a huge difference when composing and navigating through each program. Finale is a pain in the ~~~, Overture isn't.

[Joseph Burrell]

Sniff, I love you Dave.

[newmewzikboy]

Im a real lover of Finale for score writing, over Sibelius. However, I could give a rats ~~~ as a composer for WRITING with Finale, or for Sibelius, or for Cubase if I can't have maximum flexibility and edit my MIDI from day one...I really love where Overture is headed. I'm willing to overlook those other elements I do love in a final score package, if it helps me work in my most intuitive way. I can always clean up my scores in my other tools, and most likely will...but you have to start with a good composers tool.

One thought, I would love it if they had a little sketch pad feature, where you could put your sketch and precomp material to reference as you write in your main score. Like a notepad for composers. cool

[Daryl]

I really can't comment on score output since I don't particularly care what mine looks like since there's not an ice cubes chance in Hades that anyone would ever need a printed score of mine.



And that's where we differ. As I said before, I really hope that someone, somewhere will come up with something that allows me to combine the best features of Nuendo and Sibelius. You can be sure that I will be trying any future demo, but I will also call it as I see it.

D

[Daryl]

I used Passport Encore for a film score that had a small string ensemble and they had no problem reading the parts years ago. I think people are getting a little, hmm, I dunno, obsessive compulsive about the minute differences between Finale and Overture. From my experiences, I don't see a huge disparity between Finale and Overture as far as output is concerned. I DO notice a huge difference when composing and navigating through each program. Finale is a pain in the ~~~, Overture isn't.

Uh, no; it's called being professional about music preparation. Players tend not to complain as much as they should, however in my experience even the best players play better when the music looks more professional.

D

[davecos]

Darryl, I honestly don't see the disparity between these two programs with respect to quality.

And for the record, a friend of mine has had two major works performed up here in Canada and used LOGIC 3.5 for conductor's score and parts. So while I don't disagree that a nice looking score is very helpful, using Overture over Finale will not negate a good performance by whatever group gets their hands on the music. And in the end, it's about how good the MUSIC.

[Daryl]

Darryl, I honestly don't see the disparity between these two programs with respect to quality.

And for the record, a friend of mine has had two major works performed up here in Canada and used LOGIC 3.5 for conductor's score and parts. So while I don't disagree that a nice looking score is very helpful, using Overture over Finale will not negate a good performance by whatever group gets their hands on the music. And in the end, it's about how good the MUSIC.

I truly do believe that you can't see the difference between Finale/Sibelius/Cubase/Logic and Overture, however it doesn't mean that there isn't one :>)
I looked at the Overture forum today trying to find scores done in Overture 3 and couldn't find anything that was remotely presentable. I even found topics that stated that it was unable to produce all sorts of grace notes...!

D

[davecos]

I truly do believe that you can't see the difference between Finale/Sibelius/Cubase/Logic and Overture, however it doesn't mean that there isn't one :>)
I looked at the Overture forum today trying to find scores done in Overture 3 and couldn't find anything that was remotely presentable. I even found topics that stated that it was unable to produce all sorts of grace notes...!

D

Really? Hmmm. My tool bar on my copy of Overture 3.1 has all sorts of 'em. Weird.

[tomhartman]

Uh, no; it's called being professional about music preparation. Players tend not to complain as much as they should, however in my experience even the best players play better when the music looks more professional.

D


With all due respect, I've not seen sessions where the musicians were reading anything that looked any better than what was posted up here. Professionalism comes from the music not being filled with mistakes, and being legible. The musicans really don't care beyond that, and getting paid.

TH

[Daryl]

With all due respect, I've not seen sessions where the musicians were reading anything that looked any better than what was posted up here. Professionalism comes from the music not being filled with mistakes, and being legible. The musicans really don't care beyond that, and getting paid.

TH

We obviously have different experiences then. There's no point in me posting any more as it is obvious that my "eye" for a printed score is not the same as yours. To me it is like comparing RMX or Stormdrum with MIDI GM drum patterns played by a Soundblaster.
As I said earlier, if someone can show me a score that is at least decent then I'll admit that Overture is better than it looks to me at the moment. So far no takers....

D

[Bruce A. Richardson]

I love people who speak of that which you haven't even used. Wait for the demo gents and then speak your mind.

Spoken like a true beta tester.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

The single problem that I have always had with Overture (yes, I am a licensed user of the product for MANY YEARS), is that the output capabilities have been behind the rest of the program. That is the phenomenon Daryl is referring to, I believe.

Although, my beef was a little different. I was looking for a way to do very nicely published scores for some educational music I wrote, and to my extreme distress (after spending the time getting the scores entered and tweaked) I discovered that there was no EPS, AI, or other standard vector-file output. You had to print the notation directly from Overture.

I am not sure whether this was resolved. But it was so glaring an omission that I quite literally never imagined it would be a missing feature.

That is the onus Overture has to overcome with many people. So, being a defensive beta tester (especially when it seems by the evidence here that the beta team is young with little music publishing experience) is not going to convince people who have been burned in the past. Overture is an old program. Some really crummy decisions were made in the past concerning the direction of its development, including a few years where it was sold off like a hot potato among multiple buyers before landing back in the corral of the original author.

History exists. And when history has bumps in the road for a particular application in the way Overture has come about, a couple of bubbling beta testers ain't gonna convince people that the sky has suddenly cleared.

That said, I have always felt that Overture was the most promising notation program, with the most potential. It has just been the nuts and bolts realization of that promise which has always fallen a little short. If that has changed, great. But good ideas are only half of the battle. It's the implementation and back end flexibility that make or break notation programs. Overture never got this right in the past. It will be good to see if that has changed.

[Joseph Burrell]

? Is that a good thing or bad thing?

[Alan Lastufka]

Bruce, as of posting this thread I had not touched Overture 4, I was just going off the feature list. For me the importnt thing in a notation program is that it works just as fast as if I were sketching the notes out on a sheet of paper in front of me on my desk. (and of course all that VST stuff that NONE of the other notation packages that I'm aware of offer)

I was a Finale 2001 user, and I called Sibelius and got a package including a disk with a full working demo version of it sent to me to try out - both programs left me etremely uninspired. Overture just clicks with me and I am able to enter notes and articulations almost as fast as with my quill. ;)

I printed out the example I posted in this thread for a university first chair violinist. She had no problems with its appearance.

[newmewzikboy]

Well, Bruce. I feel the same way about Finale's feature creep and bad programming. And it never was or will be a composers tool. Same with Sib. History aside....


What in the end are our options?

[Jeff Turner]

I'm glad that Overture 4 will be making it's debut soon. I know a lot of people have been waiting for it and I hope that it's everything they wanted.

I see all notation programs having different strengths and catering to different markets. While the printed page is my primary concern and I choose Finale to do most of my work in. I also own and use Sibelius from time to time.

I hope that some examples of Overture's printed output is put online soon. I see nothing wrong with owning and using different notation programs for different situations.

Jeff

[Joseph Burrell]

Bubbling? Not hardly. I'm the most serious person you're ever likely to meet. You're a funny guy Bruce who's obviously very prone to sporadic fits of bull-headedness.

I think if you had actually read my post you'd realize that I never claimed Overture's score output compared with Sibelius or Finale's. I can't say that it does, and I can't lie and say that it matters to me either. Yes I am a beta-tester, but I'm also a part of the program. I am handling all the VST definitions. So obviously there's a slant to my opinion of the program. I don't hide that either. I've always been very outspoken in my support of the direction of the program and the program in general. But I'm also a large critic of it as well. I've got the ear of the programmer and I use it.

I can't console your worries or anyone elses about formats at this point, because 'I' haven't paid it much attention. But the rest of our bubbling team of idiots would probably be glad to let you in on that. So I'll get Jim (a professor) or John to chime in.

PS. And since I can't let anything lie, there's no offence to anyone meant by anything I say. I just don't like offhand comments that everyone using this program in the beta stages is some kind of goofball. Contrarily, they are not. We have some very experienced people on the team. But it doesn't matter. I'm not trying to sell the program to Finale or Sibelius users. That's like swimming up a waterfall. If you want to try it yourself, then fine, when the demos released have at it. My posts here have been factual based on questions raised and information needed. That's all. And for anyone's info. I'm the only person on the beta team who's posted here. Everyone else is basing their judgement on previous experience or the feature list.

Again, this program is designed for midi performance. Simple statement that I think covers the goal. The score output in my limited experience with it, is suitable and covers most peoples need. I don't see EPS or AI format as export options. I'd most likely assume this is the same as why there isn't a 10,000 dollar jazz font installed with the package. If you start slapping features like that in, then you end up with a program that costs as much as the other two. Don realized he'd have to make that trade off, and that's what he's done so far.

If it isn't for you, then why worry? The other two still exist.

Geeze, you'd think I was holding a gun to someone's head telling you that you have to use this program over the others. I don't particularly care. But that's no reason to be condescending. I think we can strip out all that and be professional in our posts. But that's why I rolled my eyes when I saw this post appear. I knew all this would get started, its nothing new. These are concerns that I feel will always be present. Which is why I said that we're aiming at a different segment of the market. But you'd think, from the posts, that no one care's about the midi end of it. I guess we should charge 8 hundred bucks for it and include textured paper output. :rolleyes:

[newmewzikboy]

Yeah, skip the damn textured paper output, and the play along with mitch features, and the mic dictation entry, and the silly wizards, and the MIDI hyperscribe features, and the silly jazz fonts, and the silly music student exercize creator.

All I want is to be able to write music on a stave quicky and easily, edit my midi, and hear what I write while I work. And export that in some sort of format to I can publish it using higher end tools - both MIDI and Score.

If you want engraver fonts..ok, but I'd rather have a lean and mean composer tool first...

[JonFairhurst]

Somehow the screenshots failed to impress me. I kept looking for where I could draw or select an expression curve. Did I miss something?

Also, it looked mouse-window intensive. I'll keep an open mind for when I can download and try a demo, but if the interface is click-slide-click-slide-click just to navigate to where you can do something useful, I'll have to pass.

-JF

[newmewzikboy]

How about click drag drop click drag drop with the occasional numberkey-click numberkey-click numberkey-click ?

[Joseph Burrell]

Jon,

Once you turn on the Edit Midi Data, then you can click the Controller option from the Edit Midi toolbar and then your midi data appears on screen. Select the controller you wish to edit from its dropdown and draw away.

There's nothing to it. Like 3 clicks. And once you're there you can edit multiple tracks at on sitting. Then all you'd need to do is bounce between the applicable controllers. Tell me you can do that in the others.

Maybe I'll put up some Flash video files to show how these features work. Provided everyone understands they're not meant to be representative of anything more than they claim to be. I won't be trying to showcase A+ score output. :rolleyes:

[JonFairhurst]

Jon,

Once you turn on the Edit Midi Data, then you can click the Controller option from the Edit Midi toolbar and then your midi data appears on screen. Select the controller you wish to edit from its dropdown and draw away. Awesome. I didn't get that from the screenshots.
There's nothing to it. Like 3 clicks. And once you're there you can edit multiple tracks at on sitting. Then all you'd need to do is bounce between the applicable controllers. Tell me you can do that in the others.

Maybe I'll put up some Flash video files to show how these features work. Provided everyone understands they're not meant to be representative of anything more than they claim to be. I won't be trying to showcase A+ score output. :rolleyes:Flash demos would be great - not only as a feature description, but as a tutorial. It's nice not only to know what a program does, but also what the user needs to do to make use of it.

-JF

[Joseph Burrell]

I'll add it to the to do list which has grown exponentially in the past few days. Who knows maybe if I ask loud enough the gods will grant me 72 hours in a day.

[newmewzikboy]

Don't forget my canonic utilities, plugin features, and sketch pad....I want these by 4.1b

I'll add it to the to do list which has grown exponentially in the past few days. Who knows maybe if I ask loud enough the gods will grant me 72 hours in a day.

[Joseph Burrell]

NMB, sure thing. We'll try to get it in 4.0a, but no promises. :cool:

Jon, not a problem. I have intended on making some tutorial videos all along, but I guess I can slap together some feature oriented ones to tide everyone over. I can't spend days on it though, I've got more pressing issues at the moment. Like getting all these VSTi's definitions in there, it aint easy folks (my neck and hands hurt, do you have any idea how many instruments are in Colossus. I do. A lot.)

I can imagine the barrage of posts telling me how shoddy the score output looks now and no matter how much I say its just a demo to show you how easy it is to add a freaking hairpin to the score and edit it, it'll still happen. God I love the internet.

[newmewzikboy]

Just don't loose or shift focus from the message

"The best, flexible, and most intuitive Composer's tool in the market"...

[Joseph Burrell]

First video is up, I made it special for you Jon. :p

http://geniesoft.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4618#4618

This is Edit Midi Data from the score.

I won't barrage this thread with every freaking one I upload so if you're interested, post in the feature discussion thread at the Geniesoft forum or post here and ask for a video of a feature you want to see and I'll see about it.

[astrt4]

Well, Bruce. I feel the same way about Finale's feature creep and bad programming. And it never was or will be a composers tool. Same with Sib. History aside....


What in the end are our options?

Sibelius and Finale most definitely are composers' tools. Everyone I know who purchases these programs uses them at least in part for composition.

I personally use Finale the most. Finale is the best notation program for automatic playback, where the user doesn't have to do much to get good results. Overture 4 doesn't appear it will have the same automation of Finale, but it has much better tools for getting easy access to the MIDI data. So as it was stated by someone else here, two different markets have two different tools. The people who generally don't want to spend time tweaking (but may need to have the option from time to time) can use Finale. The people who want to tweak the performance exactly the way they want it can use Overture.

[newmewzikboy]

Finale and Sibelius are horrible composers tools. Everybody I know who uses them believes they are difficult to work with from a composition standpoint. Yes, we all use them successfully for copying parts and for printed output, and I include myself there. When I get a nice clean score with all my dynamic marks aligned and special symbols marked I feel a real sense of cool. But that does not necessarily equate to ease in the creative process of composing which comes waaaay before. We use them because nothing else is available.

You're right, OT4 may have strength in MIDI. And that helps in giving the composer creative feedback while he is creatively composing, so he can hear and feel inspired to write more or tweak his "writing" to match what should occur. Finale is horrible for envelops. And there is noting like a good ol cresc.

But I want more. I want a sketchpad feature, so I can put in more abstract materials like motives, inversions, schenkerian structures etc. I'd like to also get a visual sense of length. I despise trying to compose in teh parameters of a window. I want to shuffle pieces of paper around on the screen. make little cards of ideas to pop around etc etc...

And what I really really really would like is instant handwriting recognition on a tablet PC, so I could use a stylus and write in my music by hand. Or draw just notes on a page without duration and play with them sonically to hear what they sound like. Or just the rhythms...


Sibelius and Finale most definitely are composers' tools. Everyone I know who purchases these programs uses them at least in part for composition.

I personally use Finale the most. Finale is the best notation program for automatic playback, where the user doesn't have to do much to get good results. Overture 4 doesn't appear it will have the same automation of Finale, but it has much better tools for getting easy access to the MIDI data. So as it was stated by someone else here, two different markets have two different tools. The people who generally don't want to spend time tweaking (but may need to have the option from time to time) can use Finale. The people who want to tweak the performance exactly the way they want it can use Overture.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

I agree about the composers' tools. There are none.

I pretty much can't add anything else here. I keep trying, but after I read what I write, I realize I can't post it.

[Joseph Burrell]

Why hold back Bruce? I don't have any problem with legitimate issues being posted and aired publicly.

I just don't like the condescending attitude toward the beta team at Geniesoft. They're plenty of experienced people on the team.

[steve martin]

Joseph,

my apologies, I posted a query about the tempo change aspect of the Overture 4 program, and then went back to your original post and realized you did not want posts on the announcement area. Stupid me for not reading it properly.

My query again - is the tempo change part of the Overture 4 similar to the "tempo tap" programming feature in Finale 2006?

[Joseph Burrell]

At this time, no. The tempo changes so far can be drawn in, entered via expression, or otherwise.

There's been discussion over this and it looks like it can be incorporated in the future (maybe in a point upgrade), but in order to ge the product to market, it may miss this release.

[steve martin]

At this time, no. The tempo changes so far can be drawn in, entered via expression, or otherwise.

There's been discussion over this and it looks like it can be incorporated in the future (maybe in a point upgrade), but in order to ge the product to market, it may miss this release.

Joseph,

thanks for the info.

[peter269]

Sibelius and Finale most definitely are composers' tools. Everyone I know who purchases these programs uses them at least in part for composition.

With all due respect, I don't know who you know, but in Los Angeles, I don't know a single composer that uses ANY notation program to score it. I'm sure some do, but the time demands for film/tv scoring just don't allow for this, especially if a midi mock-up is required, and most times, it is.

OUTSIDE film/tv production, quite possibly.

[chambermusic]

"With all due respect, I don't know who you know, but in Los Angeles, I don't know a single composer that uses ANY notation program to score it. I'm sure some do, but the time demands for film/tv scoring just don't allow for this, especially if a midi mock-up is required, and most times, it is."

"OUTSIDE film/tv production, quite possibly"


Well, that's the difference, isn't it? In the demand for fast composition for film, tv show or advertizement, one would want to go directly to the best mock op as fast as possible.... and these would use a sequencer or notation program made for playback. For professional engravers and arrangers one would want Finale or Sibelius, or even Score, among others. It just depends upon whether or not one want publisher quality output or not. For many, this is not necessary.

I am not a professional composer, but I want publisher quality scores. I guess that is just me. That is why I use Finale. All the same, I have pushed MakeMusic for the past 3 years go improve upon their playback capacities.

David

[Ashermusic]

I have to agree with Peter here. As a composer who prints out my own scores and also prints scores for other composers who compose in Logic as I do, while Logic's score is not engraving quality I have never had any complaints from players about the readability of the parts. I could never compose however in a program that has as limited midi implementation and is as counter-intuitive as Finale.

That said, for anyone who is a decent pianist who also would like engraving quality printout, why not simply compose in your sequencer of choice, export it as a standard midi file to your notation program of choice and add dynamics, markings, formatting, etc. there and print it out?

[Eric G]

It seems there are several definitions of "composer" running around this discussion, hence the notion that "there are no good composer's tools."

For some, a "composer" is the person who creates the music to go with something else - film, TV, video, etc. If a mockup is needed, I don't know why anyone would use a notation program as a starting point, because a sequencer is a much better tool. If the final product will be played by "real musicians", then a re-creation or port of the work through notation is a necessary hoop in order to get good parts. I submit that this doesn't represent most "composers."

For some, a "composer" is the person who creates music, period. This music may or may not be played by "real musicians", and may or may not need printed parts to read from. The music may or may not be for video, film, concert stage, or beginning school orchestra. By the numbers, most "composers" who are sustaining themselves by creating music are doing some work for a variety of media. (NOTE - this is admittedly just my own guess. I have no hard numbers to stand on.)

For these composers, I think there is a wealth of tools. If the music doesn't need to be re-created as notation, then pick your favority flavor of sequencer/recorder/walkman/portastudio and have at it. If the music will be played by others, make the parts that are best suited for the players, be they lead sheets, chord changes scrawled on napkins, or fully dressed & detailed common notation.

If this entails a notation program, there are several great options. Like a sequencer, pick the one that fits your brain and gets you the output you want. For me, this is Sibelius. Finale doesn't fit my brain, and Overture just doesn't look good (sorry). Any of them can be at least as good as a pencil and score paper if they fit the way you work. Thankfully, the tools are always improving, but even as they are, they're quite good for plenty of composers. If, for you, the tools aren't "good", perhaps the tools just don't fit the way you work. Perhaps, due to the uniqueness of your creative process, a notation program for you isn't on the horizon. Pick up a pencil and get cracking.

Make no mistake - for printed notation, the look & quality of the parts DOES matter. I'm not guessing, here - this is well-established in the body of music research and easily seen in the most common setting in which music is being read (which is NOT a studio full of seasoned pros). You'll encounter fewer errors (timing errors, specifically) if the engraving is within parameters. Seasoned pros are more able to overcome the difficulty of reading not-so-good parts, but the difficulty is still there.

I don't think everyone will truly be happy with our "composer's tools" until we all have midi out jacks coming out of our heads, that could lead directly to either a DAW or a conductor's score. :)

--Eric

[newmewzikboy]

I feel a bit out of place. In terms of priority:

1) Flexible Notation tool, allows me to easily manipulate score data without being worried about the details of rests, durations and the like when I am sketching or writing music top down.
2) MIDI edits, so I can easily make this material sound like what I want it to be...and inspire further musical creation.
3) Notation Printing. Everything is frozen. I have entered and polished and it's ready to be blown out to parts and read by live players.

This is the way I work...from the general and ambigious, to the details.

Finale, Sibelius do NOT give me satisfaction in number 1 or 2
Cubase does NOT give me satisfaction in number 1 or 3
Overture4, from what I can tell, would not give me satisfaction in number 3

Since OT4 only has one strike against it, and this is #3 priority on my list, it is well in my consideration.

[Alan Lastufka]

newmewzikboy,

I'm working on designing a new engraver font based off of the highest quality publishings from Durand and others. This may address your issue #3 as I'm designing it using paths, meaning at any print resolution it will be as sharp as your printer is capable of.

It's not a done deal yet so I don't know how intergrated the font will be, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
You can view a preview of the time and energy I put into each of the 220+ symbols here: http://www.lastlibs.com/NOTATUS.png :)

[newmewzikboy]

nice going Alan. That might put an end to this dribble about printing that keeps coming up re OT4, and put it in the offering against the bigger name notation packages.

[steve martin]

I'm using Sibelius 3 with GPO at the moment, but the midi messages for mod wheel values are easy to insert if you are just adding a few, but crescendos and diminuendos are time consuming in comparison to Overture.

I'm creating the score in Sibelius, exporting it as a midi file to overture, using the graphic window etc. I then export it as a midi file, and open it up in Sibelius again....I then cut and paste sections that I have worked on in overture from the re-converted score to my original sibelius score, and the results are great.

The only problem is that I have heaps of tuplets in the starting piano solo,
[it's a concerto], and I am not sure how to make them come out properly when you open it as a midi file in Overture.
I really don't have time to learn how to use the notation input properly in Overture, [I'm flat out working as a Primary school music specialist] so, I'm looking forward to the Overture 4 as it will have XML conversion [I believe that is what I read on the features thread], and then I can have the advantages of Sibelius 3 and Overture 4.

I'm planning to purchase the Recordare dolet for converting Sibelius 3 to XML, and I'll get the best of both worlds.

In the meantime, I'm discovering how wonderful overture is to use, things like mute/solo in the playback so you can concentrate on editing midi for on part, and playing it back without the sounds of other instruments blocking what you are hearing etc[which I didn't realize were there].


I've quickly read through the tutorial on the graphic window, and i really think that I have not realized what a great product overture is until now.
So....my question is..When will Overture 4 be avaliable?

I hope soon!

[newmewzikboy]

Yes, me too steve.

I cnat wait for OT4. Also looking forward to Finale upgrade in the fall. I think they will go hand in hand, especially with tempo tap features.

I'll be able to use my GOLD, SILVER and GPO under one scoring application

[steve martin]

Yes, Joseph mentioned that the tap function may be incorparated in a future version of Overture, in this thread after my question to him.

The tempo tap will take an enourmous lot of "unreality" out of a computer score [well, I haven't tried it yet so I'm having faith here].
I was lucky enough to have had piano study with a pianist in New Zealand, [where i grew up-though I now live in Australia], who was a pupil of Hilda Dederich, who was in turn one of Matthay's proffessors at the his London Piano School. Some times people who have no idea of what is really involved with the Matthay technique think it was only the physical aspects of playing. But not so. I was taught through my teacher that the "expression is in the rhythm".
Hilda taught that to make notes sound more important, you give a slight "wait" before them, and rubato was very important to get expression also..etc, expression just was not achieved using a "singing" weight touch etc.
What this means to us midi orchestrators is that if this tempo tap works as it is meant to, combined with all the mod wheel use etc, you should be able to produce a very "live" performance. You could enter in extremely difficult piano scores [or orchestral ones], and have them play back very expressively and not like a "pianola" effect, [which is one thing Matthay seemed to loathe - he called it "strumming" from what I recall in one of his books.], using the tempo tap.
The tempo change in overture is also pretty good as well, but I think it would be good to have both ways availiable in a score program, as everyone works differently, and may prefer one or the other method of tempo control.
So, with xml with Finale and Overture 4, you should be able to whizz your score back and forwards between them [well hopefully!], and add all the changes you want from them etc to your live playback score.
I've talked a little to Robert Piechaud about this, and I think the future for us guys who work with notation, rather than just sequencers, is the idea of importing between different notation programs using xml and getting the benefits of each ones strong points.

[steve martin]

"Hilda taught that to make notes sound more important, you give a slight "wait" before them, and rubato was very important to get expression also..etc, expression just was not achieved using a "singing" weight touch etc."


...Sorry, what I meant here was that expression was not just achieved using ''weight touch", but a combination of touch methods, and the pianist's use of rhythm / beat as a method also.

Also, if any have not seen them, the videos on the Overture 4 Features announcement are breathtaking in regard to their VST capability. They are on the Geniesoft website also
It's going to be quite an amazing program to be able to use with GPO.

[Joseph Burrell]

I've got some ideas about ways to control the tempo playback. I'll see what we can do to get this into a point upgrade. I'd rather not wait until the next version. Maybe a tap tempo feature as well as the ability to assign the tempo to a controller (a general one like 98 or something.)

Also, we may look at a way to have an onscreen assignable controller in the program that allows you to conduct the dynamics of a performance in realtime without the use of midi hardware. That's a big maybe, but its something I'd like to see incorporated into the program for rough edits.

[steve martin]

Thanks for the response Joseph.
Well, I recently saw the Overture 4 information on the Genie-Soft web site, and it looks amazing. Yes, the tempo tap would be a great thing to have with this program also. Will Overture 4 pick up the different instances of GPO ...what I mean is that for solving the legato/sustain conflict, I saved another instance of GPO so that you can play back sustain on piano, and legato on strings the same time....my Cubase SE does pick this up, but I'm hoping that Overture will do the same as Cubase does.

[Joseph Burrell]

I assume you mean that you have two Personal Orchestra dll files (one a copy and paste of the other, then renamed.)

No. That isn't possible. The Overture VST engine gets the VST instrument ID from inside the dll and is not based off the name of the dll itself. So right now, there's no way to do what you need inside Overture 4 since all instances of GPO in the Overture 4 instrument rack will be based off the same plugin. Simply copying and pasting the Personal Orchestra dll will not suffice for Overture 4.

Its too bad there isn't two dll's available with different ID's.

[steve martin]

Hello Joseph,

thanks for your reply.
Yes, I did do the copy/paste thing. I changed the name slightly, just before the
'd.ll" part of the file name. Ir works fine in Cubase, and it means I have two instances of the GPO player, and one can have it set on sustain mode [and I just insert the one instrument / piano in one of them. The others are used for the legato for instruments.
I thought that you may be able to do the same thing in Overture 4, as it really is type of a sequencer just like Cubase is - well, I'm not sure, so that's why I asked.

I'm considering purchasing the East West Silver, as in that case, I can have the EW silver doing the piano part, and GPO on the rest, which means I will not have to worry about not being able to have the piano using the sustain, and the GPO strings legato at the same time. That should work should it not?

[Joseph Burrell]

Yes, that would work. Also, using any other piano library would work as well. I recommend the PMI and Sampletekk stuff (but you'd need full Kontakt.) Another option is the new Virtual Grand from Hans. Its in a Kontakt Player. If there was a way to change the internal ID of the GPO dll file this wouldn't really be necessary, but there's no way to do that on this end, and I'd hate to tell the programmer that we need to redo the VST engine for Overture 4 (so that's out. :) )

[steve martin]

Yes, that would work. Also, using any other piano library would work as well. I recommend the PMI and Sampletekk stuff (but you'd need full Kontakt.) Another option is the new Virtual Grand from Hans. Its in a Kontakt Player. If there was a way to change the internal ID of the GPO dll file this wouldn't really be necessary, but there's no way to do that on this end, and I'd hate to tell the programmer that we need to redo the VST engine for Overture 4 (so that's out. :) )
Thanks again Joseph for the new info,

Now 2 more questions , sorry to be a nuisance but...

1. Is there any approx. time for the Overture 4 release date?

2. If you have different sound libraries playing back - eg GPO and East West, [or more than 2], can you record a wave file using both of them at the same time?

thanks,

Steve M.

[Joseph Burrell]

You can record anything you're using in the VST rack. No problems there. I've tested Overture 4's VST engine with many commercial and free VST's and they have all performed flawlessly.

Release should occur during the month of August.

[Bela D Media]

But you still need to go through the entire 68 page Giovani manual JB.:p

LOL

[steve martin]

You can record anything you're using in the VST rack. No problems there. I've tested Overture 4's VST engine with many commercial and free VST's and they have all performed flawlessly.

Release should occur during the month of August.

Thanks again for the info Joseph.

I'm really looking forward to the release then!

[Joseph Burrell]

But you still need to go through the entire 68 page Giovani manual JB.:p

LOL

Yee gods I hope not! My experience with the Vocal Utility for Giovani was great. Didn't need to read any manual. Worked flawlessly once I figured out that I wasn't supposed to use the VC Manual patches with it. :rolleyes:

[steve martin]

Joseph,

will you forgive me if I ask a few more final questions relating to Overture 4?

I'm mentally dividing my tax return [that I'm hanging out to receive possibly this week], into different portions...Sib 4 upgrade, and other things....is it possible to know approximately what the price is for Overture 4 and also the different ranges eg ordinary, and educational will be? Naturally I want to afford Overture 4 when It comes out instead of blowing my cash on something else!

[Joseph Burrell]

Please, please, please, keep in mind this is pure theory at this point and is not set in stone.

The crossgrade price is looking to come in at around $150 with you being able to keep the license of your current program.

The retail price for the program will be slightly higher than what it is now, depending on what ends up in the box for shipment. There will be a download option priced somewhere around $30 to $50 dollars cheaper than the boxed version with a PDF manual. Manuals may be purchased seperately at cost + shipping.

There will be an upgrade option from Overture 3 SE and Overture 4 SE that will be decided when we have settled on a retail price. I can't speak of what the educational discount will come to, but I think you may be better off looking at the crossgrade since there's no downside to it. You'll be able to keep your current program license and have a full copy of Overture 4 to boot. Site licenses are fairly reasonable already and won't change overmuch.

[steve martin]

Please, please, please, keep in mind this is pure theory at this point and is not set in stone.

The crossgrade price is looking to come in at around $150 with you being able to keep the license of your current program.

The retail price for the program will be slightly higher than what it is now, depending on what ends up in the box for shipment. There will be a download option priced somewhere around $30 to $50 dollars cheaper than the boxed version with a PDF manual. Manuals may be purchased seperately at cost + shipping.

There will be an upgrade option from Overture 3 SE and Overture 4 SE that will be decided when we have settled on a retail price. I can't speak of what the educational discount will come to, but I think you may be better off looking at the crossgrade since there's no downside to it. You'll be able to keep your current program license and have a full copy of Overture 4 to boot. Site licenses are fairly reasonable already and won't change overmuch.


Joseph,

thank you again for the info, and thanks for putting up with my pesty questions. You've got amazing patience with all of us [me the most]. That also looks like a pretty generous cross-grade to me. Looking forward to it coming out.
I really hope that Overture 4 does well. Being the first notation program with full VST is quite an accomplishment. I hope a lot of people sit up and take notice. I'm really warming up to using it.
The XML feature will make a huge difference - I just recently purchased Recordare's Dolet for Sibelius, which means I'll save heaps of time by not having to do all my scores I want to work with in Overture, from scratch again.

best,

Steve M.

[Bela D Media]

Yee gods I hope not! My experience with the Vocal Utility for Giovani was great. Didn't need to read any manual. Worked flawlessly once I figured out that I wasn't supposed to use the VC Manual patches with it. http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
Doh! LOL

So how does The Giovani Edition work with Overture 4? Can you explain the basic concept and user benefit?

[Joseph Burrell]

What we've done in Overture 4 to make life easier for users that have midi tools that sit between the notation/sequencer and the sampler, we've made a way to easily route midi in and out of Overture 4 before it gets to the plugin. This way, users don't have to have multiple midi tracks (one for midi out, one for midi in) or have to use the standalone version of Kontakt. This way, the end result still gets recorded during render in Overture. Its very intuative to set all this up and hopefully more software companies will see this and incorporate something like this into their programs. Its surprising this hadn't happened anywhere else before as it really is quite amazing in its simplicity and ease of use. You can use the same midi ports (provided they go to the same plugin) up to 16 times depending on how many channels each patch needs. Some people may be rolling their eyes, but once you see how easy it is, it'll make sense why I harp up things like this. Its the same ideal we've used for the rest of the new features we've added. We've made sure that for everything new we've added, we've done so in a way that keeps it as transparent as possible while keeping it flexible and powerful.

This coupled with the midi controller and keyswitch definitions for Giovani and many other products make using Overture 4 with todays sample libraries as easy as can be.

I'd post a video of it, but I'm waiting on a certain somebody to send me the disk I left in his computer at NAMM. When I do get it, I'll be sure to post a video and the resulting audio showcasing this powerful midi routing feature. It makes using Overture 4 with Giovani a snap at any rate. I had it up and was using it in no time.

[Bela D Media]

OUTSTANDING!

Well, if someone would not leave awesome DVDs laying around at the NAMM show....;)

[steve martin]

Joseph,

that new demo on the overture 4 site called Liberty - by Jesse Hopkins is... wow!
Were the voices used in that demo that Bela D Media Young voices product?
I suspect the orchestra was GPO. Sounds real great.

[Jimi]

Yeah, I've always wanted a sketchpad tool, but had to resort to opening two notation programs at once. With pencil and paper, it's a simple matter to scribble an interesting modulation or whatever in a sketch book, before figuring out where it occurs in the actual score.

[Joseph Burrell]

We have posted an important poll in the Geniesoft forum. If you're a registered member, please come by and take part.

[RickD]

We have posted an important poll in the Geniesoft forum. If you're a registered member, please come by and take part.

Who is beta testing the MAC Version? Can we hear some reports on how the Mac version is working out with EWQLSO as a VST?

Thanks,
Rick

[atonal]

We obviously have different experiences then. There's no point in me posting any more as it is obvious that my "eye" for a printed score is not the same as yours. To me it is like comparing RMX or Stormdrum with MIDI GM drum patterns played by a Soundblaster.
As I said earlier, if someone can show me a score that is at least decent then I'll admit that Overture is better than it looks to me at the moment. So far no takers....

D

Quite possibly, .. after 30 professonal years in the studios, I now need glasses, not because of the scores or parts, but my age ( sigh ... ).
However in the 'real' real world of professional, payed studio work, where the composer survives by his ability to compose fast and creatively, and the players survive by their ability to sight read anything put in front of them, the cosmetics of the parts ( or scores ) meant absolutely nothing when some producer would ask that the music be changed on the spot for some particular cue, and everyone ( including me and my conductors score ) had many, many pencil corrections and additions scribbled (all over) them. None of this had any effect on the quality of the recorded cue, ... except perhaps to insure that we all survived to come back into the studio the following week ...

( FYI... the parts were all hand written by copyists in the first place )

Maybe your professional studio experiences have been different ...

-- atonal

[Ashermusic]

Quite possibly, .. after 30 professonal years in the studios, I now need glasses, not because of the scores or parts, but my age ( sigh ... ).
However in the 'real' real world of professional, payed studio work, where the composer survives by his ability to compose fast and creatively, and the players survive by their ability to sight read anything put in front of them, the cosmetics of the parts ( or scores ) meant absolutely nothing when some producer would ask that the music be changed on the spot for some particular cue, and everyone ( including me and my conductors score ) had many, many pencil corrections and additions scribbled (all over) them. None of this had any effect on the quality of the recorded cue, ... except perhaps to insure that we all survived to come back into the studio the following week ...

( FYI... the parts were all hand written by copyists in the first place )

Maybe your professional studio experiences have been different ...

-- atonal
This is also my experience. However parts start out, they are born to be altered in undesirable cosmetic ways in the world of commercial, as opposed to academic, work.

The parts need to be accurate, readable, and represent the composer and/or orchestrator's intentions. Anything beyond that is simply to please of the aesthetic sense of the music preparer, rather masturbatory.

[Jeff Turner]

Maybe your professional studio experiences have been different ...

-- atonal

My studio experience has been different. While it's true that the music sometimes got vastly re-written during the sessions and parts were all marked up, the music as it was put on the stands initially was generally as professional looking as possible. When an arranger comes in and gives the musicians a computer printout that his sequencer just spat out as an afterthought, I've noticed that musicians have less respect for that arranger.

If musicians are given parts which look professional, they will give a better performance.

JT

[Joseph Burrell]

But I think anyone could agree that Overture 4's default score output more than meets that requirement. Its a far cry from 'just spat out from a sequencer.'

[Jeff Turner]

But I think anyone could agree that Overture 4's default score output more than meets that requirement. Its a far cry from 'just spat out from a sequencer.'

Just to be clear, I wasn't referring to Overture at all. I was referring to situations where notation is almost an afterthought to a sequencer, and yet some musicians will use that notated output and give it to musicians to decipher.

JT

[Joseph Burrell]

If I handed someone printed output from a sequencer as a guide to play by, I'd have to expect a right ding alongside the earhole in return.

[atonal]

...
If musicians are given parts which look professional, they will give a better performance.

JT

Possibly, I've never had the opportunity to test this out.
This was never overtly obvious to me. When I hired first call studio musicians for a session, I never once asked them if they respected me, or the phisical appearance of the parts. It's a business, not a group sole search.
I often paid the first chairs double scale, even before they declared how many doubles they used. They're all professional that are paid extremley well to play 'excedingly well' what is put in front of them. I as a leader/composer of the session never felt I was getting stoned-walled or short changed from the musicians. Most of these guys are so good that after the second or third time through the chart or cue, they only needed to glance at the part.

(possibly life outside Hollywood studios is a bit different, ... more personal .. )

-- atonal

[Jeff Turner]

(possibly life outside Hollywood studios is a bit different, ... more personal .. )

-- atonal

not more personal, perhaps more efficient. When music producers took the trouble to make sure the parts were unambigous and easy to read, sessions usually required less questions from players, less things that needed to be explained. When the session went fast, everbody saved money and everybody was happy.

JT

[Ashermusic]

My studio experience has been different. While it's true that the music sometimes got vastly re-written during the sessions and parts were all marked up, the music as it was put on the stands initially was generally as professional looking as possible. When an arranger comes in and gives the musicians a computer printout that his sequencer just spat out as an afterthought, I've noticed that musicians have less respect for that arranger.

If musicians are given parts which look professional, they will give a better performance.

JT

Well, "professional" is a loaded word. When I print out scores for L.A. studio musicians from Logic they certainly are not an "afterthought" and I work damn hard to see that they are accurate, readable and conveying my or another composer's intentions.

IMHO they do not look elegant or engraving quality but they damn sure look "professional" and that is all they require.

[Ashermusic]

not more personal, perhaps more efficient. When music producers took the trouble to make sure the parts were unambigous and easy to read, sessions usually required less questions from players, less things that needed to be explained. When the session went fast, everbody saved money and everybody was happy.

JT

Well, that steams me!

Nobody, but nobody, is more efficient than Hollywood studio musicians. They are routinely asked to play and record large minutes of difficult music well under the pressure of very little time due to shrinking budgets. I don't know who you use in "N.W. Illinois" but I guarantee you they do not measure up to the efficiency of the L.A. studio musicians who work on films/tv.

[Jeff Turner]

Well, "professional" is a loaded word. When I print out scores for L.A. studio musicians from Logic they certainly are not an "afterthought" and I work damn hard to see that they are accurate, readable and conveying my or another composer's intentions.

IMHO they do not look elegant or engraving quality but they damn sure look "professional" and that is all they require.

Calm down for josh sakes. I've retired to NW Illinois. I worked in Chicago studios for 30 years and have over 10,000 sessions under my belt.

The fact that you said you "I work damn hard to see that they are accurate, readable and conveying my or another composer's intentions" is exactly what I'm talking about. The majority of the sessions I was involved in , this is how the producers approached it.

But I did see a small minority of sessions, where horrible sequencer printouts where passed out on the stands. I've seen chicken scratch pencil notation before computers came into play. This are amatuerish to me. I'm sorry if others don't agree.

The only point I'm trying to make is in my personal experience when time was taken to make sure the music was clear (as you do) to the players, everything went better.

If someone gets outstanding performances from musicians by having them read slop, then I'm amazed.

Jeff

[Eric G]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Turner
...
If musicians are given parts which look professional, they will give a better performance.

JT

Possibly, I've never had the opportunity to test this out.
This was never overtly obvious to me. When I hired first call studio musicians for a session, I never once asked them if they respected me, or the phisical appearance of the parts. It's a business, not a group sole search.
I often paid the first chairs double scale, even before they declared how many doubles they used. They're all professional that are paid extremley well to play 'excedingly well' what is put in front of them. I as a leader/composer of the session never felt I was getting stoned-walled or short changed from the musicians. Most of these guys are so good that after the second or third time through the chart or cue, they only needed to glance at the part.

(possibly life outside Hollywood studios is a bit different, ... more personal .. )

-- atonal

The thought that better-looking parts equates to better performance is not just a hunch, it's well-established in the body of research in music performance. For seasoned pros in a Hollywood studio, that difficulty may not be as apparent because of the high skill level of the players, but it is still there.

It's also worth noting that most of the part-reading in the world doesn't take place in pro studios, Hollywood or not. For every seasoned pro in a top-notch studio who can read parts that look like smeared baby snot, there are a few hundred (more?) working stiffs who would benefit from cleaner parts, and for every one of those there are thousands of players in colleges and conservatories whose performances suffer when printed parts don't conform, and for every one of those there are THOUSANDS of school band & orchestra kids whose brains are turned inside out if parts don't look right.

I know of that which I speak - a few years ago, a young trumpet player in 6th grade asked me, "So...what's the fingering for a whole note, again?" :)

[Ashermusic]

Calm down for josh sakes. I've retired to NW Illinois. I worked in Chicago studios for 30 years and have over 10,000 sessions under my belt.

The fact that you said you "I work damn hard to see that they are accurate, readable and conveying my or another composer's intentions" is exactly what I'm talking about. The majority of the sessions I was involved in , this is how the producers approached it.

But I did see a small minority of sessions, where horrible sequencer printouts where passed out on the stands. I've seen chicken scratch pencil notation before computers came into play. This are amatuerish to me. I'm sorry if others don't agree.

The only point I'm trying to make is in my personal experience when time was taken to make sure the music was clear (as you do) to the players, everything went better.

If someone gets outstanding performances from musicians by having them read slop, then I'm amazed.

Jeff

I am calm and I take issue with nothing of what you say here in this post. Also, no one is arguing that better parts do not make the process easier. My understanding is that what we are discussing is how much difference than there is in parts (done with care) in different programs and where quality and speed intersect.. Clarity is indeed required or time is wasted; engraving quality and elegance are not. There is no way I can produce in Logic a part that is as elegant as Finale, Sibelius, and perhaps Overture but I can produce one that is accurate, detailed and correct and if half the cues for the film are done on one of the other programs and I do half from Logic I can tell you that there will be no difference in the quality of the performance of the musicians.

So whether Overture can produce parts that are as elegant as Finale or some other program is simply irrlevant to those of us who are not looking to publish the score and parts. It is far more important to us how quickly we can produce the proper parts. And Overture sounds like it is going to be good for that.

Hey, Joseph, need a Mac beta tester?

I fully understand that more people are probably using score programs at universities, etc. and not the hectic world of film, tv, and to a lesser extent, records and that they may have different concerns. Hell, Stravinsky used to do his scores in diffeerent color inks.

Finally, with all due respect to the fine musicians of Chicago, I flatly reject the idea that they are more efficient than L.A. studio musicians. Period.

[atonal]

wow ... sorry I poured water down this ant hole. ... anyway ..

I worked in the studios for about 23 years, and during that time I don't think I ever had 'ONE' session ( parts / score, etc ) printed out, either sequencer, notation program, whatever... The technology simply just didn't exist at that time.

All parts were copied by hand, and beautifully so. Major studios had copy staffs of 10 to 15 pros who could copy a part almost quicker than I could think of the notes. Never did I see anything ( parts ) resembling smudges or *****. Where do we think the excellent 'hand' font styles come from that are currently being offered by certain notation programs.

Granted, I was very, very fortunate to have parts copied quickly and very clearly for me in all of the major studios ... I agree that this is clearly not the case in most situations. Most copyists I know would probably take offense at the suggestion that just because it was done ( then ) by hand, the prerformance suffered.

As I said before, I never asked a musician if he respected me as an arranger or composeer when I put the call out for the session. If 'his' performance was not what I was expecting ( or needing ), I just didn't call him again.

I appologize for contributing to this thread being hijacked. I thought I was getting better in this area, apparently not...

I for one am eagerly looking forward to Overture 4 . It's got my money.

-- atonal

[Joseph Burrell]

Yes, Ashermusic, at some point in the near future we will need some Mac beta testers.