Off-Topic :
K-Meleon Web Browser Forum
This is a reply to an off-topic post by thomas13 in the Announcements forum:
I agree it's a mess, especially the interface. It's designed for a 1024x768 display, and I have 1024x600. I'm forever sliding popup windows back on the screen, as they come up partly outside the borders. Also, scrolling is totally mouse-dependent, there's no vertical scrollbar, and the individual pages of the score are laid out horizontally, rather than vertically, like in a word processor.
Nevertheless, I've managed to complete 318 scores with MuseScore over the past 4 years, and am very dependent on entering notes in music notation; other input methods leave me cold. As for version 2.0, I tried that, but it was even worse, and bloated beyond belief. The process of composition requires, after all, concentration on the music, not on a battle with the software.
---
Gerry
Thanks for the reply!
I had to use Musescore for a music technology class and I hated every minute of it. I used version 1.x because it was at least somewhat sane and somewhat respected my user interface but the prof was expecting version 2.x files which made it look messed up on his computer and I lost a lot of marks that way after spending hours perfecting my scores in version 1.x.
That is a lot of scores, so I can understand you'd be attached to Musescore!
I discovered LilyPond a number of years ago and it really is wonderful.
It is a huge change from entering scores graphically but I think it is very worth the steep learning curve. The documentation is much better than it used to be and the mailing list community is quite helpful and responsive!
Best of all, the output really is beautiful and well-thought out, and you only have to worry about entering notes, not fiddling with alignment of objects since it's all done automatically.
If I were you, I would try exporting one of your Musescore 1.x scores to LilyPond format and compare the LilyPond output to the original score. (They removed that feature in Musescore 2.x)
It might be foreign if you're not used to using markup languages, but this page explains how simple it really is, since you needn't normally worry about styling and object placement (the defaults are usually good!)
If you really do like the graphical method of entering music then there are many tools for LilyPond available. I have found Frescobaldi to be quite good and sensible as well as customizable enough and it respects GUI conventions and user choice. You are looking at the code, but there is a wizard to set up your score which makes things much easier, as well as graphical menus and toolbars which are shortcuts to common notes, rhythms, and more!
Denemo is a very novel program for inputting music which uses LilyPond which you can find here.
I wasn't fond of the more confusing (IMHO) GUI, but you might like it.
It has also surpassed version 2.0 since I used it so it might be much improved at this point. I have spoken to the developer in the mailing lists and he is very open and responsive to feedback and requests for help!
As I said before there is an add-on for jEdit for LilyPond (no longer maintained but it still works) which I used for a long time and is quite good feature-wise but of course it is quite heavy and sometimes slow, being Java-based.
LilyPond certainly is the best program for sheet music output, but I have had composer friends prefer graphical programs like Musescore or Sibelius since you can drag things around on the screen, but I think it likely depends on your composing process. I am usually just using LilyPond for re-arranging existing songs so my circumstance may be a bit different.
In any case, good luck!
I had a similar experience: A friend of mine sent me one of his scores in MuseScore format, but I couldn't open it, because he had created it in v. 2.0, and I use 1.3. Worse still, I have some templates that I created in 1.3, and 2.0 didn't read them correctly.
I think the first version of MuseScore that I tried must have been something like .9x, because it was slightly less frustrating. Also, in that very old version you could adjust the zoom increment, and also save that as a preference. But that was prior to 2012. With 1.3, which is what I have now, zooming with the keyboard is too extreme. It can be adjusted more finely using the mouse wheel, but the setting will not stick.
I just tried that, and looked at the source code. The file was UTF-8 encoded, with Unix line endings; no problem there, as I have a good text editor. As for output, I would have to download Lilypond to see/hear the difference. Can LilyPond export to PDFs? What about playback; raw MIDI sequences are unacceptable. MuseScore's soundfonts, while they don't produce the exact sound of real acoustic instruments, do approximate them pretty well. I export all my scores to WAV files, then use a separate utility to convert them to MP3s. Another thought: From time to time I need to go back and make revisions in my existing score files, which are in native MuseScore format.
The only markup languages I'm used to are HTML and CSS. I write those in a plain-text editor, which is laborious, but I've found that HTML editors make too many assumptions and insert unnecessary tags.
Aside from only about 10 arrangements, my scores are all original compositions. When I compose, I start off from a new theme running around in my head. I've learned to visualize what the notes would look like on the staff, and proceed to enter them directly in MuseScore and develop the piece further, rather than scribbling it out on paper in my messy (left-handed) handwriting and transcribing it in the software. Speed of entry is essential; if I break the flow, I lose the idea.
Just so that you don't get the wrong impression, I don't sell my compositions. This is strictly a hobby for me; it doesn't earn me one cent, which is why I've stayed with freeware. Sibelius, for example, is far too expensive for an amateur composer.
---
Gerry
Hi Foliator; sorry for the delay — I just finished my last school assignment and now I'm back to K-Meleon and all the other wonderful things in life!
By default, LilyPond parses the text file and converts it to a PostScript file, then from that to a PDF and deletes the .PS file. This is what it does if you run it graphically within Windows. If you run from the command line (or a GUI tool like Frescobaldi, you can also convert to PNG format which is useful in certain circumstances. I don't know exactly what you mean by a "raw" MIDI sequence for playback, but yes it can also output the music to .MID files for playback if you include a MIDI block command in your file ( \midi {} ). I personally find them usually quite good and even enjoyable to listen to with the default settings without any tweaking, and if you need articulation there is a script included in the program for that (you just add \include articulate.ly to your file). The MIDI playback is improving as the program moves forward but since it's a compiled system, you will never get "instant" playback like in Musescore or other graphical programs. As far as soundfonts go, I'm not sure how that really works. I have both MuseScore 1.x and 2.x installed on this computer but in my Audio Control Panel, only the "Microsoft GS Wavetable SW Synth" shows up, which is the 1996 standard Roland sound set. I'm not sure if this depends on your operating system or sound card or if you can set your MuseScore sound font to your general one for use by all MIDI programs, but that might be worth looking into if the default doesn't do it for ya! There's something about "MIDI-sounding MIDI instruments" that I love, especially playing some wonderful Bach counterpoint with the super harsh synthetic strings. Perhaps my camp tendencies are showing!
Anyway, you can use whichever text editor you like of course, though if you use a specialized tool like Frescobaldi (basically a LilyPond IDE) then you get syntax highlighting and other niceties.
If you've used HTML and CSS then LilyPond language should be quite easy for you to learn. I'm used to trying to convert people who have never seen any kind of code before!
I used a very basic plain text editor when I started out (MS-DOS Edit, included in all versions of DOS and Windows AFAIK) but I do prefer Frescobaldi these days because of its simple but very helpful interface with the niceties like syntax highlighting, shortcuts, and command predictions. You can also view the PDF and listen to the MIDI outputs within the program (which is handy because if you have the PDF or MIDI file open in external programs like Adobe/Acrobat Reader or Windows Media Player when you try to run LilyPond again, then it will give you a nonsense error message and then fail.
If you really are a very visual thinker, then a graphical program like MuseScore might really be the best program for you. As I said, there is a significant learning curve, and you have to just type in the notes, but it is a different mode of thinking that likely takes some getting used to. The normal mode of entry can be very fast once you get used to it however. This is a program where you really do have to read the manual first (at least the Learning Manual!) A program like Frescobaldi does ease the learning curve significantly with helpful shortcuts to things you mightn't use all the time. The best feature in my opinion is the Score Wizard, which sets up your score at the beginning, creating enough code for a template of what you're writing. If you're just writing simple piano music then it's not a big deal because there is a piano template (and a few others) in an appendix to the manual. But if you're writing something more complicated (like band music with transposing parts; my worst nightmare and something I always seem to have to deal with) then the Wizard is incredibly helpful. I spent countless hours trying to wrap my head around transposition the first time I seriously used LilyPond five years ago. The documentation is fortunately much better now however!
If you're still interested, Denemo is yet another, very different, mode of entry. It is still really another front-end for LilyPond, but one that is supposed to be a "less mechanical" method of input. Basically you enter the notes and rhythms seperately so you don't have to think about them at once (and because of this you can just play the different lines into a MIDI keyboard if you have one. It frustrated me personally, but I was using version 1.x and version 2.0.8 is out now which I think is genuinely better, though I haven't actually tried it (and don't plan to!
) The developer was very helpful and responsive to concerns however! (there are videos demonstrating how note entry works in the program if you're interested.)
I was actually trying to use it because I was exporting from Sibelius to MusicXML (supposed to be the standard conversion format) and that was fine, but the MusicXML to LilyPond converter is quite bad if the music is at all complex.
Just FYI, I never bought Sibelius (it was "loaned" to me from a friend) and I can attest that it's really not that amazing compared to MuseScore IMO, though it's a lot heavier and slower to start up!
Anyway, in the end of course it's your decision based on your needs, but I love LilyPond so I let people know about it when I can
Hopefully you find some helpful information here!
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2016 04:10PM by thomase13.
Thanks for the very comprehensive reply. It's too long to quote in my follow-up, but you make a lot of good points. My comments about raw MIDI playback stem from the fact that MIDI rendering of acoustic instruments is unrealistic and actually grates on my nerves -- but then, so did Wendy Carlos' "Switched-On Bach" recordings back in the old days.
The soundfonts I mentioned are provided in MuseScore's distribution package. They are files with the extension .SF2, and stored in the app's sound subfolder. You select them via the program's main menu under Display/Synthesizer. When a score is played back in MuseScore, it is actually routing the output through a soundfont, rather than playing it as a standard General MIDI sequence. The MIDI sounds in Windows 7's built-in synthesizer are atrocious.
Version 2 ships with the so-called Fluid soundfont, which makes all my many classical guitar compositions sound like harpsichord pieces. Whoever designed that soundfont may have never heard a classical guitar (my own instrument), which has nylon strings and a very delicate and mellow sound compared with steel-string guitars (especially the electrified ones).
Version 1.x ships with the TimGM soundfont, which comes a lot closer to real nylon guitar sound. In fact, it's the best one I've found after downloading many other .SF2 files from third party sources. Most of them are freeware. TimGM's piano, however, is crappy, but I have another soundfont that's designed exclusively for acoustic grand piano, and the sound there is pretty realistic. When writing for piano I have to switch to that one for playback and for the ultimate conversion to an MP3.
One of the reasons I closed my account on Musescore.com's score-sharing site was the fact that they were planning to make Fluid the default soundfont on that site (have already done that now), and since users could only upload score files, not MP3s, my own compositions would have suffered tremendously. Another reason I quit was that the site was getting too much like Facebook -- that is, focus was gradually drifting away from music composition in favor of social networking, "followers", and the like. People were paying too much attention to the number of followers they had. Many of those who followed me or "favorited" my pieces were doing it in the hope that I'd help increase their own follower count. It was more about keeping score than writing one. :mad:
As for transposing instruments, I seldom work with them. In Musescore, however, you can opt for concert pitch, write out the part, then turn off concert pitch and see the notation automatically transposed to what the actual musician would be reading. I once did a little french horn trio that way as an experiment. Transposition is actually one of Musescore's strong points. Yes, it actually has many strong points; my main beef is its awkward UI.
Interesting article by Susan Sontag, a name familiar to me from the sixties. The article was written in the year of my high school graduation (ancient history ).
---
Gerry
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2016 05:22PM by foliator.
All which isn't K-Meleon related.
re: MuseScore (thomase13)
Posted by:
foliator
Date: May 18, 2016 01:42PM
This is a reply to an off-topic post by thomas13 in the Announcements forum:
Quote
thomase13
Last Off-topic comment to Foliator:
Musescore is a complete mess and nightmare IMHO, especially Musescore 2.x
You should try out LilyPond with Frescobaldi for easier editing!
(Frescobaldi is nice and simple but also Qt-based so you might want to look at another editor if you want to avoid Qt.
(Windows Notepad works fine [the included editor "LilyPad" can't handle Unicode if you need accented characters] and there's a plugin for jEdit if you want syntax highlighting and section collapsing features)
I agree it's a mess, especially the interface. It's designed for a 1024x768 display, and I have 1024x600. I'm forever sliding popup windows back on the screen, as they come up partly outside the borders. Also, scrolling is totally mouse-dependent, there's no vertical scrollbar, and the individual pages of the score are laid out horizontally, rather than vertically, like in a word processor.
Nevertheless, I've managed to complete 318 scores with MuseScore over the past 4 years, and am very dependent on entering notes in music notation; other input methods leave me cold. As for version 2.0, I tried that, but it was even worse, and bloated beyond belief. The process of composition requires, after all, concentration on the music, not on a battle with the software.
---
Gerry
Re: re: MuseScore (thomase13)
Posted by:
thomase13
Date: May 18, 2016 05:24PM
Thanks for the reply!
I had to use Musescore for a music technology class and I hated every minute of it. I used version 1.x because it was at least somewhat sane and somewhat respected my user interface but the prof was expecting version 2.x files which made it look messed up on his computer and I lost a lot of marks that way after spending hours perfecting my scores in version 1.x.
That is a lot of scores, so I can understand you'd be attached to Musescore!
I discovered LilyPond a number of years ago and it really is wonderful.
It is a huge change from entering scores graphically but I think it is very worth the steep learning curve. The documentation is much better than it used to be and the mailing list community is quite helpful and responsive!
Best of all, the output really is beautiful and well-thought out, and you only have to worry about entering notes, not fiddling with alignment of objects since it's all done automatically.
If I were you, I would try exporting one of your Musescore 1.x scores to LilyPond format and compare the LilyPond output to the original score. (They removed that feature in Musescore 2.x)
It might be foreign if you're not used to using markup languages, but this page explains how simple it really is, since you needn't normally worry about styling and object placement (the defaults are usually good!)
If you really do like the graphical method of entering music then there are many tools for LilyPond available. I have found Frescobaldi to be quite good and sensible as well as customizable enough and it respects GUI conventions and user choice. You are looking at the code, but there is a wizard to set up your score which makes things much easier, as well as graphical menus and toolbars which are shortcuts to common notes, rhythms, and more!
Denemo is a very novel program for inputting music which uses LilyPond which you can find here.
I wasn't fond of the more confusing (IMHO) GUI, but you might like it.
It has also surpassed version 2.0 since I used it so it might be much improved at this point. I have spoken to the developer in the mailing lists and he is very open and responsive to feedback and requests for help!
As I said before there is an add-on for jEdit for LilyPond (no longer maintained but it still works) which I used for a long time and is quite good feature-wise but of course it is quite heavy and sometimes slow, being Java-based.
LilyPond certainly is the best program for sheet music output, but I have had composer friends prefer graphical programs like Musescore or Sibelius since you can drag things around on the screen, but I think it likely depends on your composing process. I am usually just using LilyPond for re-arranging existing songs so my circumstance may be a bit different.
In any case, good luck!
Re: re: MuseScore (thomase13)
Posted by:
foliator
Date: May 18, 2016 09:19PM
Quote
thomase13
I had to use Musescore for a music technology class and I hated every minute of it. I used version 1.x because it was at least somewhat sane and somewhat respected my user interface but the prof was expecting version 2.x files which made it look messed up on his computer and I lost a lot of marks that way after spending hours perfecting my scores in version 1.x.
I had a similar experience: A friend of mine sent me one of his scores in MuseScore format, but I couldn't open it, because he had created it in v. 2.0, and I use 1.3. Worse still, I have some templates that I created in 1.3, and 2.0 didn't read them correctly.
I think the first version of MuseScore that I tried must have been something like .9x, because it was slightly less frustrating. Also, in that very old version you could adjust the zoom increment, and also save that as a preference. But that was prior to 2012. With 1.3, which is what I have now, zooming with the keyboard is too extreme. It can be adjusted more finely using the mouse wheel, but the setting will not stick.
Quote
If I were you, I would try exporting one of your Musescore 1.x scores to LilyPond format and compare the LilyPond output to the original score. (They removed that feature in Musescore 2.x)
I just tried that, and looked at the source code. The file was UTF-8 encoded, with Unix line endings; no problem there, as I have a good text editor. As for output, I would have to download Lilypond to see/hear the difference. Can LilyPond export to PDFs? What about playback; raw MIDI sequences are unacceptable. MuseScore's soundfonts, while they don't produce the exact sound of real acoustic instruments, do approximate them pretty well. I export all my scores to WAV files, then use a separate utility to convert them to MP3s. Another thought: From time to time I need to go back and make revisions in my existing score files, which are in native MuseScore format.
Quote
It might be foreign if you're not used to using markup languages, but this page explains how simple it really is, since you needn't normally worry about styling and object placement (the defaults are usually good!)
The only markup languages I'm used to are HTML and CSS. I write those in a plain-text editor, which is laborious, but I've found that HTML editors make too many assumptions and insert unnecessary tags.
Quote
LilyPond certainly is the best program for sheet music output, but I have had composer friends prefer graphical programs like Musescore or Sibelius since you can drag things around on the screen, but I think it likely depends on your composing process. I am usually just using LilyPond for re-arranging existing songs so my circumstance may be a bit different.
Aside from only about 10 arrangements, my scores are all original compositions. When I compose, I start off from a new theme running around in my head. I've learned to visualize what the notes would look like on the staff, and proceed to enter them directly in MuseScore and develop the piece further, rather than scribbling it out on paper in my messy (left-handed) handwriting and transcribing it in the software. Speed of entry is essential; if I break the flow, I lose the idea.
Just so that you don't get the wrong impression, I don't sell my compositions. This is strictly a hobby for me; it doesn't earn me one cent, which is why I've stayed with freeware. Sibelius, for example, is far too expensive for an amateur composer.
---
Gerry
MuseScore vs. LilyPond & Frescobaldi vs. Denemo!
Posted by:
thomase13
Date: June 10, 2016 03:59PM
Hi Foliator; sorry for the delay — I just finished my last school assignment and now I'm back to K-Meleon and all the other wonderful things in life!
Quote
foliator
I think the first version of MuseScore that I tried must have been something like .9x, because it was slightly less frustrating. Also, in that very old version you could adjust the zoom increment, and also save that as a preference. But that was prior to 2012. With 1.3, which is what I have now, zooming with the keyboard is too extreme. It can be adjusted more finely using the mouse wheel, but the setting will not stick.
Quote
thomase13
It certainly is frustrating!
If I were you, I would try exporting one of your Musescore 1.x scores to LilyPond format and compare the LilyPond output to the original score. (They removed that feature in Musescore 2.x)
I just tried that, and looked at the source code. The file was UTF-8 encoded, with Unix line endings; no problem there, as I have a good text editor. As for output, I would have to download Lilypond to see/hear the difference. Can LilyPond export to PDFs? What about playback; raw MIDI sequences are unacceptable. MuseScore's soundfonts, while they don't produce the exact sound of real acoustic instruments, do approximate them pretty well. I export all my scores to WAV files, then use a separate utility to convert them to MP3s. Another thought: From time to time I need to go back and make revisions in my existing score files, which are in native MuseScore format.
By default, LilyPond parses the text file and converts it to a PostScript file, then from that to a PDF and deletes the .PS file. This is what it does if you run it graphically within Windows. If you run from the command line (or a GUI tool like Frescobaldi, you can also convert to PNG format which is useful in certain circumstances. I don't know exactly what you mean by a "raw" MIDI sequence for playback, but yes it can also output the music to .MID files for playback if you include a MIDI block command in your file ( \midi {} ). I personally find them usually quite good and even enjoyable to listen to with the default settings without any tweaking, and if you need articulation there is a script included in the program for that (you just add \include articulate.ly to your file). The MIDI playback is improving as the program moves forward but since it's a compiled system, you will never get "instant" playback like in Musescore or other graphical programs. As far as soundfonts go, I'm not sure how that really works. I have both MuseScore 1.x and 2.x installed on this computer but in my Audio Control Panel, only the "Microsoft GS Wavetable SW Synth" shows up, which is the 1996 standard Roland sound set. I'm not sure if this depends on your operating system or sound card or if you can set your MuseScore sound font to your general one for use by all MIDI programs, but that might be worth looking into if the default doesn't do it for ya! There's something about "MIDI-sounding MIDI instruments" that I love, especially playing some wonderful Bach counterpoint with the super harsh synthetic strings. Perhaps my camp tendencies are showing!
Anyway, you can use whichever text editor you like of course, though if you use a specialized tool like Frescobaldi (basically a LilyPond IDE) then you get syntax highlighting and other niceties.
Quote
foliator
The only markup languages I'm used to are HTML and CSS. I write those in a plain-text editor, which is laborious, but I've found that HTML editors make too many assumptions and insert unnecessary tags.
If you've used HTML and CSS then LilyPond language should be quite easy for you to learn. I'm used to trying to convert people who have never seen any kind of code before!
I used a very basic plain text editor when I started out (MS-DOS Edit, included in all versions of DOS and Windows AFAIK) but I do prefer Frescobaldi these days because of its simple but very helpful interface with the niceties like syntax highlighting, shortcuts, and command predictions. You can also view the PDF and listen to the MIDI outputs within the program (which is handy because if you have the PDF or MIDI file open in external programs like Adobe/Acrobat Reader or Windows Media Player when you try to run LilyPond again, then it will give you a nonsense error message and then fail.
Quote
foliator
Aside from only about 10 arrangements, my scores are all original compositions. When I compose, I start off from a new theme running around in my head. I've learned to visualize what the notes would look like on the staff, and proceed to enter them directly in MuseScore and develop the piece further, rather than scribbling it out on paper in my messy (left-handed) handwriting and transcribing it in the software. Speed of entry is essential; if I break the flow, I lose the idea.
Just so that you don't get the wrong impression, I don't sell my compositions. This is strictly a hobby for me; it doesn't earn me one cent, which is why I've stayed with freeware. Sibelius, for example, is far too expensive for an amateur composer.
If you really are a very visual thinker, then a graphical program like MuseScore might really be the best program for you. As I said, there is a significant learning curve, and you have to just type in the notes, but it is a different mode of thinking that likely takes some getting used to. The normal mode of entry can be very fast once you get used to it however. This is a program where you really do have to read the manual first (at least the Learning Manual!) A program like Frescobaldi does ease the learning curve significantly with helpful shortcuts to things you mightn't use all the time. The best feature in my opinion is the Score Wizard, which sets up your score at the beginning, creating enough code for a template of what you're writing. If you're just writing simple piano music then it's not a big deal because there is a piano template (and a few others) in an appendix to the manual. But if you're writing something more complicated (like band music with transposing parts; my worst nightmare and something I always seem to have to deal with) then the Wizard is incredibly helpful. I spent countless hours trying to wrap my head around transposition the first time I seriously used LilyPond five years ago. The documentation is fortunately much better now however!
If you're still interested, Denemo is yet another, very different, mode of entry. It is still really another front-end for LilyPond, but one that is supposed to be a "less mechanical" method of input. Basically you enter the notes and rhythms seperately so you don't have to think about them at once (and because of this you can just play the different lines into a MIDI keyboard if you have one. It frustrated me personally, but I was using version 1.x and version 2.0.8 is out now which I think is genuinely better, though I haven't actually tried it (and don't plan to!
) The developer was very helpful and responsive to concerns however! (there are videos demonstrating how note entry works in the program if you're interested.)
I was actually trying to use it because I was exporting from Sibelius to MusicXML (supposed to be the standard conversion format) and that was fine, but the MusicXML to LilyPond converter is quite bad if the music is at all complex.
Just FYI, I never bought Sibelius (it was "loaned" to me from a friend) and I can attest that it's really not that amazing compared to MuseScore IMO, though it's a lot heavier and slower to start up!
Anyway, in the end of course it's your decision based on your needs, but I love LilyPond so I let people know about it when I can
Hopefully you find some helpful information here!
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2016 04:10PM by thomase13.
Re: MuseScore vs. LilyPond & Frescobaldi vs. Denemo!
Posted by:
foliator
Date: June 11, 2016 04:52PM
Thanks for the very comprehensive reply. It's too long to quote in my follow-up, but you make a lot of good points. My comments about raw MIDI playback stem from the fact that MIDI rendering of acoustic instruments is unrealistic and actually grates on my nerves -- but then, so did Wendy Carlos' "Switched-On Bach" recordings back in the old days.
The soundfonts I mentioned are provided in MuseScore's distribution package. They are files with the extension .SF2, and stored in the app's sound subfolder. You select them via the program's main menu under Display/Synthesizer. When a score is played back in MuseScore, it is actually routing the output through a soundfont, rather than playing it as a standard General MIDI sequence. The MIDI sounds in Windows 7's built-in synthesizer are atrocious.
Version 2 ships with the so-called Fluid soundfont, which makes all my many classical guitar compositions sound like harpsichord pieces.
Whoever designed that soundfont may have never heard a classical guitar (my own instrument), which has nylon strings and a very delicate and mellow sound compared with steel-string guitars (especially the electrified ones).
Version 1.x ships with the TimGM soundfont, which comes a lot closer to real nylon guitar sound. In fact, it's the best one I've found after downloading many other .SF2 files from third party sources. Most of them are freeware. TimGM's piano, however, is crappy, but I have another soundfont that's designed exclusively for acoustic grand piano, and the sound there is pretty realistic. When writing for piano I have to switch to that one for playback and for the ultimate conversion to an MP3.
One of the reasons I closed my account on Musescore.com's score-sharing site was the fact that they were planning to make Fluid the default soundfont on that site (have already done that now), and since users could only upload score files, not MP3s, my own compositions would have suffered tremendously. Another reason I quit was that the site was getting too much like Facebook -- that is, focus was gradually drifting away from music composition in favor of social networking, "followers", and the like. People were paying too much attention to the number of followers they had. Many of those who followed me or "favorited" my pieces were doing it in the hope that I'd help increase their own follower count. It was more about keeping score than writing one. :mad:
As for transposing instruments, I seldom work with them. In Musescore, however, you can opt for concert pitch, write out the part, then turn off concert pitch and see the notation automatically transposed to what the actual musician would be reading. I once did a little french horn trio that way as an experiment. Transposition is actually one of Musescore's strong points. Yes, it actually has many strong points; my main beef is its awkward UI.
Interesting article by Susan Sontag, a name familiar to me from the sixties. The article was written in the year of my high school graduation (ancient history
).---
Gerry
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2016 05:22PM by foliator.
English