Composers' Forum

Music Composers Unite!

Graphical MIDI Tools plug-in brings sequencer-like capabilities to Sibelius

Views: 488

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

This is very intriguing (alas, I don't use Sibelius).  I really don't know why the notation programs haven't been working on bridging this gap...

This is very intriguing (alas, I don't use Sibelius). I really don't know why the notation programs haven't been working on bridging this gap...

The problems I believe are that with Sib and Fin, theres a huge mountain of old code from many years, and because of this with Sib, anyway, almost every new feature seems to break something else. This makes change really difficult, which makes this plugin all the more remarkable.

I have Fin but dont use it at this time, so I cant comment on that,.

The real solution I feel, and almost all agree is that it will be accomplished in Dorico, which is being built from the ground up and is new. As the article says, and provides a link:

With Dorico, Steinberg has taken up the cause of sequencer-like features in notation software with gusto, and more advancements are reasonably expected in the future.

https://www.scoringnotes.com/reviews/playback-in-dorico-past-presen...

All very interesting!

Thanks Bob https://soundcloud.com/bob-morabito

PS The plugin costs $24.99 and is for Sib 7.5 and higher.

Here is the developers website with more information and is where it can be purchased:

http://santiagobarx.com/gmt/

If anyone does try this plugin please post a review here so that we all can know how it is.

Thanks Bob https://soundcloud.com/bob-morabito

This looks good Bob.

I hope it is compatible with Note Performer. My first priority is not manipulating midi data-composing by using intelligent, responsive traditional notation is. (but it is nice to know the facility is there when i want it quickly).

But did you notice this?

 

Still, the raw materials are present for such capabilities to exist within Sibelius, if only a suitable approach could be made. With that task seemingly not a priority for Sibelius developers (nor are we suggesting it should be), the responsibility has fallen upon third-parties to provide alternative approaches.

 

I copy-paste from the article and underline. Why are they not suggesting that this task should be a priority with Sibelius developers? How impartial or not-impartial is this reviewer towards AVID?

 

And if NP sounds a lot better than Sibelius (which it truly does), still it covers these "non-priority" matters that AVID has decided are not, thus forcing its users to pay an additional $130 to Wallander. And another ancient hole is discovered in the lack of any interface for MIDI control, and another third party to solve the problem, and more money for the end user to fork out.

 

In fact I don’t know why we should pay any money to AVID, for an old glorified tart such as Sibelius if in the first place does not come with such facilities as those offered by NP and now with Santiago. What exactly do we buy with all that money given to AVID? What can it do in terms of notation that the free MuseScore cannot? I think that if Wallander targets this application (MuseScore) after Sibelius and develops for it NP, its sales will hot sky-high.

 

(Thanks for giving me a chance to moan again).

HI Socrates

I hope it is compatible with Note Performer.

Its best to contact the plugin developer and ask him:

http://santiagobarx.com/contact

Santiago can be contacted via the following ways:

E-mail: santiago.barx@gmail.com
Facebook Profile: facebook.com/santiago.barx
Soundcloud: soundcloud.com/santiagobarx

For musicians:
You're welcome to join our group on Score Discussion Online.

I copy-paste from the article and underline. Why are they not suggesting that this task should be a priority with Sibelius developers? How impartial or not-impartial is this reviewer towards AVID?

IMHO it should be a priority, and  I think Philip was only trying to be diplomatic toward AVID. His blog, where this article is, and which is now called Scoring Notes used to be just Sibelius stuff called Sibelius Blog. His reviews to me are fair and always very informative.

He inherited the blog from Daniel Spreadbury after he and the entire development team was fired by AVID...what a shame. and then the entire team with Daniel was hired by Yamaha Steinberg and they created Dorico.

And its well known I have no love lost for AVID--I stopped answering questions on their official site due to what AVID was doing to Sibelius, and worked very hard alongside the Save Sibelius group. Ive refused to subscribe and no longer recommend people to buy Sibelius.

I think that if Wallander targets this application (MuseScore) after Sibelius and develops for it NP, its sales will hot sky-high.

I couldnt agree more--any application thats able to use NP will definitely increase their sales.

And the Sib Sounds library that comes with Sibelius is HUGE, and really doesnt sound too good, IMHO.

Thanks Bob https://soundcloud.com/bob-morabito



Socrates Arvanitakis said:

This looks good Bob.

I hope it is compatible with Note Performer. My first priority is not manipulating midi data-composing by using intelligent, responsive traditional notation is.

But did you notice this?

 

Still, the raw materials are present for such capabilities to exist within Sibelius, if only a suitable approach could be made. With that task seemingly not a priority for Sibelius developers (nor are we suggesting it should be), the responsibility has fallen upon third-parties to provide alternative approaches.

 

I copy-paste from the article and underline. Why are they not suggesting that this task should be a priority with Sibelius developers? How impartial or not-impartial is this reviewer towards AVID?

 

And if NP sound a lot better than Sibelius (which it truly does), still it covers these "non-priority" matters that AVID has decided are not, thus forcing its users to pay an additional $130 to Wallander. And another ancient hole is discovered in the lack of any interface for MIDI control, and another third party to solve the problem, and more money for the end user to fork out.

 

In fact I don’t know why we should pay any money to AVID, for an old glorified tart such as Sibelius if in the first place does not come with such facilities as those offered by NP and now with Santiago. What exactly do we buy with all that money given to AVID? What can it do in terms of notation that the free MuseScore cannot? I think that if Wallander targets this application (MuseScore) after Sibelius and develops for it NP, its sales will hot sky-high.

 

(Thanks for giving me a chance to moan again).

Unlimited CC manipulation is going to be needed before the end result is as musically expressive as a DAW, because that is how all the best sounds available are moulded into a performance of greater subtlety and even then, there is the post-production side of mixing, what will be done there I wonder.

I await the day when the two are united, c'mon Dorico, get it right and make a killing.

Who doesn't want an extra clock??  :D

Seriously, though, I think sometimes you all are a little tough on these incremental improvements.  Yes, it's not a panacea, but it's also only $25 and may significantly improve some folks' output.  I see a tremendous gulf in the quality of different MIDI mockups and in general, I support anyone's efforts to improve them.

Very well said John-- +1

And again, no one is saying that this plugin will in any make using a DAW obsolete, and taking it that way is simply wrong. In fact I believe statements to this effect are seen in the videos, and reviews.

Its a first step and a very important one at that..as you pointed out not only for the improvements that it will give to scores right there in the notation software itself, but it also shows that it can be done, as it hasnt been before, and can be built upon.

I do note that Sibelius itself didnt come up with this plugin--it took a third party developer to do it, and I honestly believe the Sib programmers and development team do not have the capability in any way shape or form to do anything like this or with this, but would love to be proven wrong.

I still believe Dorico will do it and like everything else they do, they'll do it right. But till then, Im anxious to both try it myself and see what users across the web think of it.

Thanks Bob https://soundcloud.com/bob-morabito



John Driscoll said:

Who doesn't want an extra clock??  :D

Seriously, though, I think sometimes you all are a little tough on these incremental improvements.  Yes, it's not a panacea, but it's also only $25 and may significantly improve some folks' output.  I see a tremendous gulf in the quality of different MIDI mockups and in general, I support anyone's efforts to improve them.

Yes well, every time I sit down and try to figure out a DAW, it's like on the day I'm going to climb Mt Everest, I suddenly am blind and don't have any arms or legs. I get notation. As far as a realistic "mock-up" goes, I'm still finding ways to tweak Sibelius. Of course, it will never match a DAW, but then, that's not my goal. I don't want to settle for a realistic mock-up. That would, in part, suggest that I am the soul arbiter of what my music should sound like. I just don't think that way.

NP does not impress me in the least. And I have yet to hear anything from Dorico that is impressive.

I think the concept of an all-in-one powerhouse for both scoring and MIDI / audio manipulation has one unavoidable issue, and that is, how to cram it all into a user interface. Already, both in Finale/Sibelius and in various DAWs, people often find themselves wasting huge chunks of time looking for one utility or another, which *should* be right at your disposal, any sensible person would think... except there are only so many things that can be right there at the front before it all becomes an unusable mess. Imagine doubling the amount of utility you need to pack onto the screen. Maybe even tripling (because high level interaction between the score and easily adjustable and flexible MIDI data is *not* going to be simple).

That's a fair point Greg, I suppose NS may have to adapt to what all DAW users are used to in terms of layout. In Logic for example, one can set up many screenshots and I guess that is the best way to utilise screen real estate generally speaking. For non-readers a cool GUI might have the score on one page, then on another, the same lines of music in piano roll. Or perhaps if you double click on a stave you immediately go to a cc manipulation page and so on. A mixer and post plug-ins would also be required which begs the next question, touched on by Bob P.

 How many users who are not professional or don't have aspirations to be, will put themselves through the considerable learning curve to master a new set-up? Is the only real appeal of DAW/NS integration mainly for professional users and those with post production skill?

With this in mind the developers might include suggested default settings for the more complicated processes like reverbs, eq's to aid as training templates, but I still ask if amateur folk will either have the time or the inclination to delve into this side of composing which thanks to the ubiquity of computers, has given everyone on the planet a way to express themselves.

A few points come to mind.

I have MuseScore and Sibelius. Believe me there are plenty of things Sibelius can do that MS cannot.

It seems to me that Two monitors would be the answer for a UI that combines NS/DAW.

I find it interesting that DAW output is considered "professional" and NS output is not. Even when they both can use the same samples. Of course, one difference is that a DAW has basically unlimited control of the shape of the audio. I know what that statement means. I know that many DAW users don't like to listen to non-DAW output because it's not realistic. Those of you old enough to remember early recordings, remember that recording equipment and techniques were not very good, no matter how good the orchestra was. Some of these recordings did not sound very realistic, even though a real group was being recorded. Yes, I know that a more realistic file can mean getting the job or not. What bothers me about that is that content, the music, seems to be secondary. Are we using manipulation to make up for quality music? I don't mean that as a diss. Are we more concerned with how to shape what we write than we are with what we actually write? Sure, shaping is part of it. Suppose I write something for piano. I mark up the score some way that I like. I give it to 5 different players. Each one will play the piece differently. Some will play with more emotion than others. Some I like, some I don't. But they are all realistic shaping of the notes. 5 different DAW users will also come up with 5 different versions. Realistic is different for each of us.

On other hand, if I didn't get the job, what does that mean? Here's a question coming from someone who doesn't have a clue. When you didn't get the job, do they say unrealistic is one of the reasons?

By the way, cc control as well as early or late note placement is built into Sibelius. It is also possible to define many articulations, and hairpins. Control of fermatas and hairpins ( and expression text, like rit) is most effective. But most NS users are after a score more than they are a sound file. 

I can see the value of a DAW/NS combination. On the Avid site there used to be an article about how Sibelius was used to help create the sound track for Avatar. Because the music was to be recorded by an orchestra, it was written in Sibelius first. Then it was put into a DAW to get an idea what worked. Changes were made in the Sibelius version and music was printed out for the orchestra. 

RSS

Sign up info

Read before you sign up to find out what the requirements are!

Store

© 2018   Created by Gav Brown.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service