Hi Chris: Thank you very much for your response. Some further considerations follow... Chris Cannam wrote: > >I presume that part of the motivation for this is the observation that >notation software in 1994 was pretty advanced already, and the field >doesn't seem to have advanced much (if at all) since. I think that >would be a fair comment, anyway. 1994 was when I started working on >Rosegarden 2.1, and I remember being hugely impressed at the time by >the capabilities of even relatively modest software like Encore. I >don't think Rosegarden today does as much as Encore did then. The >main advance is that free software now has access to a better >notation font, thanks to the excellent work of the Lilypond project. > Yes, it seems that we have combinations of applications that in fact provide quite complete notation capabilities. LilyPond supports an impressive number of notation requirements, including figured bass and lyrics, so I could see myself preparing a basic "input" score with Rosegarden that I could export to LilyPond for refinement. This two-step process is probably anathema to the Win/Mac folks, but as Professor Belkin points out, the all-in-one aproach simply can't accomodate all the possible situations that arise during the formatting of notation destined for printed output. >Of course it's also true that notation software on Windows and Mac now >(Sibelius, Finale etc) does very little that the same or equivalent >software didn't do ten years ago. Most of the improvements since >then have been in details of user interface polish, fine-tuning the >output, and things like native synthesis for playback. > >Anyway, I'll happily respond to the list by filling in the things you >can and can't do in Rosegarden at the moment. In our defence, before >I start I do want to point out that Rosegarden is not primarily a >score typesetter at all. > Another point I've been thinking about. Belkin makes the distinction between rule-based and graphic music notation applications, noting that many apps include aspects of both approaches. However, it seems to me that a rule-based system such as LilyPond provides ultimate flexibility regarding the detail quality of output, but obviously the graphics-based approach favors ease of input. Would you say that Rosegarden takes such a combined approach ? >>Note entry: >>[x] mouse & keyboard >>[x] MIDI step-time >>[x] MIDI realtime w. flexible quantization >> audition other saves while recording >> >> > >I'm not sure I understand what that one means. > Sorry, it should have read "staves". Ergo, you can listen to music already entered on other staffs while recording a new one. >>[x] retain performance data for playback >> >> > >I wonder whether he meant velocity and instrument data only, or >pre-quantization timings as well? Rosegarden does all of these. > He doesn't specify, even in the article, but I suspect you have the right interpretation. >>[ ] number of independent rhythmic layers per staff >> >> > >Not supported at all -- a big omission. > Indeed. I assume it's on the RG Todo list ? >> maximum number of staves per system >> >> > >No built-in limit. > Excellent. >>Entry of slurs, articulations, dynamics, etc.: >>[x] intelligent default placement >>[ ] apply to multiple staves at once >> >>Selection in regional edits: >>[x] vertical, horizontal slices within and across measures, staves, >>system, pages, etc. >> >> > >Well, partly -- you can select individual notes, rectangles, >incremental selections of rectangles etc, but you can only select >from a single staff at once. > Still pretty neat. In his survey Belkin found that only Mosaic was "unlimited" in that regard. >>[x] non-contiguous >> conditional selection >> >> > >What do you think that means? > Well, I assume he refers to a command-oriented edit procedure, i.e., "If the passage is in semiquavers and written between middle C and its higher octave, then convert them to some new rhythmic value and transpose them downwards by a perfect 5th". Does that sound right to you ? >>[x] click & drag positioning of symbols >>[x] transposition (note, staff, selection, etc) >>[x] enharmonic change by region >>[ ] rhythm: change note values (ease of use) >> >> > >Not currently easy to do en masse. > >>[x] rhythm: auto-rebar >>[x] cut/copy/paste: music >> cut/copy/paste: non-musical items, formats, etc. >> >> > >Partly -- things like text are generally cut and pasteable, and of >course there is also cut and paste at the segment editor level >(something which doesn't necessarily exist in a pure notation >editor). > What about cut/copy/paste elements such as dynamic signs, tempo indicators, crescendi/decrescendi, etc. ? >> mirroring (intelligent copies) >> >> > >Again, things of this nature generally happen at the segment level. >For example, there are repeating segments that permit you to turn >individual repeats into real copies after the fact, and segments that >are triggered by individual events (for ornaments, pattern sequencing >etc). > Sounds good. >>Special/custom notation: >>[ ] unusual staves >>[?] simultaneous key signatures >> >> > >Not quite sure what's intended here either. > I believe he means simultaneous different keysigs. Is that do-able in RG ? >>[x] unconventional time signatures >>[ ] additive time signatures >>[ ] simultaneous different time signatures >>[ ] drawing tool >>[x] user-created symbols >> >> > >To a limited extent. Note heads etc are configurable to different >font glyphs or pixmaps through various XML configuration files. > Ah, that's cool. Do you plan to support additive timesigs ? What about the simultaneous different timesigs ? >> user-selectable fonts for all elements >> >> > >Rosegarden can use lots of different notation fonts, but it's actually >not possible to choose your text fonts at all (a silly omission). > Ouch. It's on the Todo list ? >>[ ] chord notation: graphic, playback, learn via MIDI >>[ ] fretboard notation >>[ ] figured-bass notation >> >> > >None of these is supported at all. > Any plan to incorporate them ? Chord frames would be nice, along with chord symbols. Figured bass would be nice, though I doubt many people actually write it anymore. >>[x] unusual note heads (slashes, harmonics, etc) >> >> > >As above, may take some configuration. > >>[ ] easily adjustable cross-staff beaming >> >> > >Cross-staff beaming is not supported at all. > Too bad. It's often the only solution to some notation problems. >>Lyrics: >>[x] mass create >>[ ] create on page >> >> > >Individual lyric elements can be added and removed by hand, but it's >laborious -- you can't just click and type. > Again, too bad. I'd like lyrics to be entered as easily as writing in a text editor, but I do understand the difference of application here. >>[x] import from text editor >> >> > >Well, you can cut and paste! > Sure can... :) >>[x] auto layout >>[ ] multiple fonts >>[ ] flexible placement >> >>MIDI playback: >>[x] ALSA or OSS support >> >> > >ALSA and JACK. > >>[x] channel support >>[x] playback includes modifiers (crescendi, dynamics, etc) >> >> > >You do have to tell Rosegarden to use them though -- it won't do it by >default because it would be bad form for a sequencer to override >velocities etc you might have already entered via MIDI. > Nice though. >>[x] direct editing of MIDI data >>[x] import patch lists (GM, GS, etc) >>[x] scrolling playback >>[x] edit during playback >> >>Entry layout: >>[x] flexible engraver spacing within measure >> >> > >To a very limited degree. > >>[x] account for dynamics, slurs, annotative text, etc. >> >>Page layout: >>[x] auto layout with engraver spacing >>[ ] reduce or enlarge symbols, staves, text, systems, by any >>percent, locally or globally >>[ ] full control of measures per system >>[ ] full control of systems per page >>[ ] remove empty staves within systems >>[ ] flexible spacing of staves within systems >> >> > >All automatic only. > But of course exporting to LilyPond gives the user all that capability. >>Part extraction: >>[ ] automatic with new layout >>[ ] dynamic links to master score >> >> I wondered whether part extraction was supported. It is of course invaluable when producing larger-scale scores for ensembles. Any plans for it in RG ? >>File operations: >>[x] follow Linux standards (?) >> >> > >(?) indeed. > I thought you might like that... :) >>[ ] simultaneous multiple files open >>[x] printed output: PS, PDF, DVI, etc. >> >>Interface/overall ease of use: >>[x] undo/redo any operation >>[x] user-defined key bindings >>[x] user control over notational defaults >> >> > >Some of them, anyway. > Good. >>[x] views: scroll, page, template, any percent, multiple >>simultaeous views >> >> > >Linear, continuous page, multi-page, any size and multiple >simultaneous views anyway. > Excellent. Can I edit notation regardless of view ? >The rest are all rather too relative for me to comment on. > > > >> priorities clear >> logical organization >> simple language and icons >> overall speed >> on-line help >> documentation >> ease of learning >> general solidity and stability >> >> Yes, these are all rather qualititative, though the documentation could be addressed. So far it seems that RG's docs are pretty good, but I haven't gone into them deeply yet. Chris, thanks again for taking the time to respond. It really does give me a better appreciation for the capabilities of RG as measured against the "state of the art" for the Mac in 1994, and I agree that the criteria probably hasn't gone out of date. Best regards, dp
