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.