Talk:Scorewriter

please use the "New Section" link when opening talk on a new subject! Thanks L.Willms (talk) 10:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rosegarden

It's true that Rosegarden started life as a sequencer, but notation has been a focal point for development for some years now. Mentioning it is 'primarily a sequencer' might give the impression that the notation functionality would be sub-par, which in my opinion is not quite fair: it definitely still needs work, but I'd say it compares quite well with most other free and some other commercial offerings.

I'd propose to either remove 'primarily a sequencer', or change it to 'can also be used as a sequencer'. I won't make the change myself, as I'm a Rosegarden contributor and that'd be akward :). --Raboof 12:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So removed. Michael Bednarek 13:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing programs

Would somebody like to put in stubs for the missing programs?

I don't know much about some of these programs, but I suppose I could make very basic stubs. I'll give it a go in the next few days, unless someone gets there first. Wombat

We should probably have disambiguation or "see also" links from the following articles:

Agreed Wombat

Done as what concerns capella. --L.Willms (talk) 10:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"mostly less sophisticated and lower priced"

I'm not convinced about the "mostly less sophisticated and lower priced" statement -- the article seems to be implying that lower priced software is usually of lower quality, which is an opinion, and not entirely compatibile with the availability of Free Software

Ojw 13:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Typesetting or word processor?

"A scorewriter is to sheet music what typesetting software is to written text." (rather than Word processor)?

No - modern scorewriters are the equivalents of both 'typesetting' and 'word processing' programs, as are modern word processors. That is, they are not just for laying out music, but also for editing, manipulating, composing, reformatting and so on. Wombat 17:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Score as obsolete

As a Sibelius, Finale and Score user it is incorrect to describe Score in the past tense. It is still winning major awards for work completed within its interface. Check the Paul Revere awards list for proof. A distinction needs to be drawn between interfaces that are fundamentally designed to be used by a domestic market and high-end engraving. With intricate publication standards both Finale and Sibelius demand much more effort to complete tasks than is the case with Score. Longevity does not necessarily imply obsolescence. The future of Score is a different issue related to computing platforms and might go the way of some Amiga and Archimedes platforms - great software but no equipment to run it on. Stanford University ran a couple of weeks on Score this year as part of CCAHR and Leland Smith gave a paper on Score for Windows - so it's not quite dead yet. It also has a significant European following.

It is also incorrect to place Berlioz, Graphire and Score in the low cost category - or at least implied.

Graphire's website has been down for quite some time - gone into liquidation? AM 9:24 UTC 29 April 2005

Score is obsolescent certainly. Last time I spoke to one of Score's distributors a few years ago, he said the number of active Score users worldwide was something like 200 - presumably rather fewer now. (And hence I expect it sells no new copies.) The quality of the software isn't the question, it's how many people still use it. Besides, the article doesn't describe it as 'obsolete' - it says it was 'once a leading program', i.e. is no longer a leading program. In terms of ongoing sales and active users this is certainly true. (It doesn't say it was 'once the best program'.)

Ben Finn 17:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC) (I declare an interest - I am one of the Sibelius founders)[reply]

Compatability problems?

Huh? All the GNU/Linux scorewriters can export to LilyPond. I don't get the compatability problems.

Free programs

Are there any free programs that allow you to hear your sample...? (Please respond on my talk page.) tinlv7 21:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NIFF obsolete?

I think calling the NIFF format obsolete is incorrect; just because a format isn't being developed further doesn't mean it's obsolete - cf. MIDI, CSV, etcet. AFAIK NIFF still being used by current scanning and notation programs. I propose to remove "(now obsolete)" from the paragraph mentioning NIFF.

In the same paragraph, the statement about MusicXML "(which is becoming widely supported)" seems rather dubious and unsourced. Michael Bednarek 07:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NIFF is certainly obsolete. The NIFF coordinator himself, Alan Belkin, says that NIFF has been superseded by MusicXML at the NIFF project page (http://www.musique.umontreal.ca/personnel/Belkin/NIFF.doc.html). NIFF was never supported by more than a handful of programs, all or nearly all of which now support the MusicXML format. The source for MusicXML becoming widely supported is available on the MusicXML page. Mdgood 06:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now referenced the respective statements in the article with web sources. Michael Bednarek 09:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free software catagory

I noticed that Scorch is listed under the free software section. Although it is no cost, it is not free as in freedom/GNU/open source. There are many no cost music viewers that offer basic score manipulation, such as NotePad from Finale, Noteworthy Composer browser plugin, etc. I suggest moving Scorch to the Commercial section or removing it altogether.--Dbolton 18:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I removed Scorch - it's neither a Scorewriter nor is it "Free Software" and it doesn't have its own Wikepedia article. Michael Bednarek 00:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flash

What does this odd sentence refer to? What are these Flash-based scorewriters?

More recently there have been Flash-based scorewriters developed that allow distribution and advanced interaction of sheet music online to any user with a modern browser.

93.96.236.8 (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots

Are screenshots of an ancient looking scorewriter app on Mac OS 9 really the best example of modern scorewriter software? At least they don't have to be from the same app... It seems like Overture people saw an opportunity for free advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.82.64 (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the only one I have! You are welcome to add extra screenshots from any other program, too! The "Ancient looking" bit is due to OS9's charcoal font, which is looking a bit dated (although featured on older iPods), not the scorewriter itself.114.76.1.27 (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely as it's not free software and is not irreplaceable in this article (unlike in the Overture (software) article, the screenshots shouldn't be on this page at all? There are enough freely licensed scorewriters around that we could use one (or more) of those to illustrate this article. 86.130.99.187 (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshots are too large (and I agree that the choice of program is odd, not least because Overture is very little used). Ben Finn (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current Work

Don't mean to be rude but the current state of this article is more like what a dog leaves behind on the sidewalk than informative or objective. I'm considering a total rewrite and would like to hear from other active editors before I commence.Bandcoach (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I added source and cleanup templates to the article and will try and make some improvements myself.Plays88keys (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to work on it and needs some inspiration, have a look at the German version, it is quite comprehensive. --WS (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could use the german article as kind of a template... -- 87.189.216.198 (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so this was originally a German article—that explains it. In my 30+ years of professional experience in music editing and notation, this is the first time I've seen term “scorewriter”. Indeed, it seemed like a literal translation of a conjoined German noun (which you often see when native German speakers write in English). I agree, a single-word term for these products would be convenient. However, in the West they're still widely referred to as “music notation software”. Since this is an English-language article, perhaps that's what it should be called. This would also avoid confusion with the proprietary Score Writer software—another reason this term's generic use seems unlikely. – AndyFielding (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created by User:Randywombat in January 2004, almost two years before the German de:Notensatzprogramm (October 2005), so I don't think there's any undue German linguistic influence in the choice of term. In fact, I can't see from which German compound noun it could be derived. The term "scorewriter" is widely used on the English Wikipedia: Category:Scorewriters and Commons:Category:Scorewriters, Template:Scorewriters, List of scorewriters, Comparison of scorewriters. While "music notation software" is probably the preferred term (and a REDIRECT exists), "scorewriter" is often used, too. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw the other WP articles that used "scorewriter" (e.g. "List of scorewriters"). I figured they were created as offshoots of this root article, so I don't know how relevant they'd be to the term's real-word use. (I just searched the Sibelius forum and found a total of one occurrence of "scorewriter"... Apparently, Sibelius themselves used "scorewriter" in a 1999 press release, and haven't used it since—maybe because their users don't?) As WP is intended to serve everyone—not just a relatively few people who prefer an obscure term over the most widely used, industry-standard one—perhaps "scorewriter" should be changed to "music notation software" in all of WP's articles, and searches for "scorewriter" should be redirected to them rather than vice versa. Again, this is just my suggestion as a long-time notation professional who's used, and sometimes been involved in the development of, virtually every high-end notation app since the dawn of Windows and Mac. (Where's my walker?) – AndyFielding (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see there are different expressions for that term, and all might be correct. But as AndyFielding mentioned, "music notation software" is the most common word nowadays. Just try to google it, the first suitable matches are those of the market leaders Finale, Sibelius, Musescore and Noteflight... So totally agree with the propose of moving that article (and probably other related articles, too) to another namespace... -- Cachsten (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Screenshot general 3 large.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Smartmusic" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Smartmusic and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 15 § Smartmusic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 01:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Flat.io Screenshot.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]