Talk:Comparison of scorewriters

Why is Denemo listed as "WYSIWYM" instead of "Yes"?

In the "WYSIWYG Editor" column, most systems are listed as either "Yes" or "No", but Denemo has a special entry of "WYSIWYM with real notes". The same could be said for MuseScore, no?

Any objections to simply changing Denemo's "WYSIWYG Editor" to "Yes"?

PeterWhittaker (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I imagine that was done because Denemo is a GUI for Lilypond, rather than a fully featured standalone scorewriter. Also on the Denemo web page that is how its authors describe it. Strictly many of these programs are WYSIWYM rather than precisely WYSIWYG, as the screen and printed output are necessarily a bit different. Maybe WYSIWYH? Unlikely with midi! Anyway I've left it for now. 79.68.76.127 (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The real problem here is that "WYSIWYG" is typically used in a text enviroment. With notation there is one abstraction layer more, you can't save it as native chars, like text. And there are always little bits of non-printing material in any editor, be it notation or not. Only the most hardcore editors lack rulers, boxes, invisible commentes and other guides to help you edit. Just having boxes around items, like musescore has, should not disqualify as WYSIWYG editor. But there are other distinctions. The real categories should be instead: 1)Has a paper view with page-breaks 2)Has no paper-view but uses real notes and notation glyphs (aka. studio-view, track-view or DAW-view) 3)No notation glyphs but something different which must be converted, like utf8 or ascii text.

• Musescore and Sibelius(traditional view) are category 1.
• Denemo, the NoteWorthy Composers and other fall into category 2
• Lilypond and ABC are 3

--87.78.90.183 (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

WYSIWYG equals good? Please remove the colors!

Why is "WYSIWYG" green and "not" is red? Is it superior to be WYSIWYG? I doubt it. Whoever created this huge table must have been thankful for working close with the data and not in some excel spreadsheet editor. TeX should than be inferior to MS Word etc. etc. I don't think the colors should be reversed but it should be neutral. Why not remove the coloring for WYSIWYG at all? There is not even an distinction between "GPL" and "Proprietary". It is just for the sake of information here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.90.183 (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The colouring does not express a value statement; it is a function of the template {{Yes}}. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Red and green are not value free. They are culturally coded to mean "go" and "stop", or whatever you want. The price column colors are value free (if you are not into esoteric color meanings :) ) --87.78.132.75 (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to change the column "WYSIWYG Editor" from {{Yes}}/{{No}} to "Yes"/"No". Be aware that editing the wikicode for the table is a bit complicated and editing it is prone to mistakes – it's not a WYSIWYG editor. Other editors might disagree and revert your edits. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

All except two of the listed programs are WYSIWYG or perhaps more pecisely in some cases, WYSIWYM. The remaining two, Lilypond and MusiXTeX, are not scorewriter programs as such, but programs for music engraving, and depend on another program to provide a front end as a GUI for their extensive capabilities in music typesetting. I don't doubt that Lilypond and MusiXTeX are superb at what they they are intended to do, but they depend on being provided with an input file in ly or TeX format respectively.

Thus they are in a different class to the other programs listed. It is therefore justified to indicate this clearly to anyone using this list to identify a program for their needs. If someone is seeking a WYSIWYG interface (which is what the column is headed), then red is an apt colour to warn them that they really aren't going to get going, and they will be stopped until they have installed another program that is WYSIWYG (if you wish unilaterally to attribute specific meanings to the colours according to your own particular cultural assumptions, then these colours are appropriate).

On the other hand, I don't see how you can infer the connection: green=good, red=bad; or any superior/inferior judgement from these colours.

This is not a judgement on the superiority or relative utility of WYSIWYG versus text-based interfaces. However I would say that this 'huge table' would be much easier to edit with an Excel-like WYSIWYG spreadsheet interface. Moving columns is extremely tedious and error-prone, whereas a good GUI would allow this to be done in seconds (and probably such things exist). WYSIWYG is not only used in a text environment, but also in many graphical and numerical applications, indeed including music notation. There are good reasons why its use has become widespread.

Whether this column could be used in a better way to indicate attributes of the different programs, perhaps such as the Categories 1, 2 and 3 suggested above, is a different question to consider. 85.210.165.134 (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not quite correct. You do not need a GUI to use either Lilypond or MusiXTeX, so the idea that the user is stopped until they install another program is simply wrong. The appropriateness of the colours then does become questionable. Also, given that, at least in Western cultures, the use of red very often implies some sort of warning or reason for caution, the objection above seems reasonable. 121.217.221.227 (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The connotations of color are more diverse than you suggest. 79.68.79.97 (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Finale import capabilities

Finale CANNOT import music from pdf and certainly not jpeg. I don't think it can import from anything other than xml and tiff. I have the software, I've looked through the help pages and I've read their page and I don't see a single claim that Finale is capable of importing music from all those types of formats. It can SAVE to pdf and I think that's about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.253.140 (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Finale includes SmartScore which has limied capabilities to scan scores. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been wondering about this myself. I think all those image formats (gif?) can be "imported" in the sense that, yes, you can add an image file into a score. The question is, should they be listed in that section for that reason? If the answer is yes, then they should be added for MuseScore as well, at least. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

latest release?

Shouldn't this column have the date of the latest release, so it will actually be useful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.127.192.60 (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Basic sort sequence of the table?

My spontaneous impulse is to reorganize the table so that it is sorted alphabetically by the program's name. But it seems that the original authors of this table have established the basic sort by cost -- first the free programs, the rest sorted by price. But this sequence is already broken by having two editions of both Capella and MuseScore directly following each other, which breaks the sort by cost.

So, how shall we proceed? I had already reshuffeled most of the table by name, but cancelled that to give others a chance to voice their opinions.
--L.Willms (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Theoretically, it should be possible to sort the table for any column, including "Name", so the original order doesn't really matter all that much. However, the sorting on the "Cost" column is poorly implemented and doesn't work. For some columns, the sorting capability doesn't make sense and should be removed (Developers, Import formats, Export format). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

All you say is true. The list is really two lists: a list of free scorewriters followed contiguously by a list of paid-for scorewriters, each list in alphabetical order. I have just moved three entries to maintain this. An option would be to sort it into one continuous alphabetical list by name as suggested, though this can already be done by anyone with a single click on the header. Another option would be to split the list into two: one for free software, one for paid-for, though this seems to serve no helpful purpose until the list becomes too long and unwieldy. As many publishers offer both free and paid-for versions of their packages, it is helpful to compare options on a single list. In any case the list can be sorted into cost order with one click, albeit idiosyncratically, segregating the free packages. If we think people visit this list seeking a package with their principal initial criteria being that it is either free or paid-for, then the present order is helpful.

Is it possible to turn off the sort option on certain columns? If so, that could be done, though it isn't worth much effort as the senseless sort results are easy enough to ignore, and might even be slightly helpful to someone. 79.68.79.97 (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I feel very strongly for a single alphabetical table with all score writers. Single-click sort ONLY works on the full desktop browser version of the page. It does not work on Wikipedia mobile site or iOS app (what I have access to), meaning the initial order does matter. Anyone on the desktop site can single-click sort according whichever field they want, but a default (full) alphabetical sort is the only one that is intuitive, and avoids readers on all platforms missing the block of commercial score writers in the bottom half.Riaanvn (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Guitar Tablature

It would be nice to show minimum and maximum strings supported in tablature either as an additional column or next to the indication of yes such as Yes 4-10 or Yes (4-9).

Kneelie (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Need for a Real-Time Play Column

There is one feature that was simply inconceivable with traditional paper/pen/print -- viz a computer-scorewriter can play music. IOW a scorewriter can double up as a musician.

So while lilypond can export to midi, musescore (and I guess sibelius/finale etc) can play in the app itself the music entered so far, highlighting the notes as they are being played.

For a beginning music student this can be quite a deal to make musicianship more accessible.

Rpm13 (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit Problems

I added Doric because it should be on the list, but I had some trouble with the visual editor. Also, couldn't pull up a lot of info I don't know firsthand. Apologies in advance 2620:0:E50:1037:9024:CD80:E3:8A60 (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Need Column for Maximum Number of Staves Allowed

One of the most critical pieces of information a buyer needs in order to decide which application to use is the maximum number of staves allowed. It is a huge limitation in terms of the types of scores a program can be used for. Programs such as Impro-Visor only allow for lead sheet notation on a single staff while more robust applications such as Finale and Sibelius allow up to 64 or more staves and can be used for some serious orchestral work. There needs to be a column added for this to help users distinguish between the capabilities of these programs and which ones best suit a particular purpose.

S. Jenkins (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Sounds all right to me. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Finding this specification on each vendor's website shouldn't be too hard to reference. Although this specification is a nice-to-know piece of information relevant to all scorewriters, some manufacturers may list it on their website while others do not. However, the only problem I can see with adding the Maximum Number of Staves is the fact the table already has twelve columns, and if one more is added, the columns will be squeezed so tight and narrow because of the limited width of the entire table. I have seen other articles where that would have been a problem, but they broke up the table into two separate ones and that resolved it somehow. I am not saying we should do that here. S. Jenkins (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

File format changes

To the IP editor(s) gradually replacing all the file extensions with either the full spelled-out name of the format (e.g., "sib" -> "Sibelius"), the capitalized form of the extension (e.g., "pdf" -> "PDF"), or neither (e.g., "wav" -> "WAVE"): why? I have at least three objections:

• Before, a consistent style was used: the exact file extension, in lowercase. Now, they're in at least four different styles, counting the original, and assuming that when you finish you've replaced all the lowercase extensions, it will still be three.
• Being able to see at a glance that, for example, .tg files can be opened by TuxGuitar is one of the major reasons file formats are listed here in the first place. These changes obfuscate that.
• It's being done very sloppily. Leaving aside how many have thus far been randomly left in their original lowercase (such as "txt"), I quickly noticed your inaccurate handling of the Guitar Pro formats (which include .gtp), and I fear you've made other mistakes and perhaps removed information that I haven't noticed.

Please explain your rationale for making these changes. Thanks. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 16:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

If you wish to have the data in a different format, please ensure that all of: file format name, link to relevant article, and possible file extensions are included. Please note that some of the current data is incorrect and needs appropriate researching to provide actual information to readers. 213.137.16.247 (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

And possibly some small explanatory text might be appropriate; for example, where there is some format that is otherwise human readable text. 213.137.16.247 (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It's also worth asking ZackTheCardshark why you've changed some of the table cells to use the {{partial}} template; it seems to be completely incorrect, and done without any thought whatsoever? 213.137.16.247 (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@213.137.16.247: What is your goal? Can you please respond to my three points? To the other question, I'm surprised it's not immediately obvious to you, but I marked as "partial" the cells where step-time but not real-time MIDI input, or WYSIWYM but not WYSIWYG, was indicated. Let's tone down the hostility now. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 01:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

My goal is that I was trying to use the article and failed, in part, because the file format information was meaningless, so, I am adding the information as specified above. As far as I see, there would be one consistent format when I am finished. You want to see file extensions in the table. I cannot do anything about you fearing that I might make mistakes. I did not yet merge in the .gtp to the other Guitar Pro formats, but I note that there is no less information than when I began; whether you want to be fearful because of this or think it's because I was checking what the format was called, and what version it was is irrelevant to me.

I fear you are wrong about the WYSIWYM. 213.137.16.247 (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm content to wait until you've finished, then. I have no idea what your last sentence means. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Deleting of Notation Software

I amended the list with the software package "Notation Software" by www.notation.com which I think is a essential software package that is missing in the list, especially Notation Software being the first software on the market to write scores back in 1994. As far as I remeber they even had the trademark on 'Notation Software' for some years. However it has been deleted twice, is that for some Wikipedia rules that I (newer contributor) are not yet aware of? I think also the Notation Software is missing its own wikipedia page.

This list is meant for score writing software with Wikipedia articles. I couldn't find any article for notation.com. WP:WTAF. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding a page and entry on Noteflight

Since Noteflight lacks a Wikipedia page it is not (yet) eligible for inclusion on this list, and my uneducated attempt to add it to the list awhile back was correctly deleted. I may get around to creating a page for Noteflight to gain experience in page creation, and then adding to this list article, although I use other scorewriter software and am not a current Noteflight user. Would anyone else like to create the page? I note that previous attempts in 2010, 2012, and 2014 were deleted as self-promotional. Noteflight was acquired by Hal Leonard in February 2014 (press release here: https://notes.noteflight.com/hal-leonard-acquires-noteflight/) and a Google search produces several articles on the software that might be useful in establishing notability, for instance these:

• https://www.wired.com/2011/07/noteflight-compose-on-your-computer/ July 22, 2011
• https://www.techrepublic.com/article/how-to-make-music-on-a-chromebook/ August 6, 2015
• https://au.educationhq.com/news/33109/noteflight-anywhere-anytime/ October 28, 2015
• https://knowtechie.com/unleash-your-musical-genius-online-5-websites-that-allow-you-to-create-music/ April 11, 2018
  

Peterlkelley (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Go for it! ZackTheCardshark (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

French programs Harmony and Melody Assistant

These are two programs from Myriad Software, Harmony is the higher end one and Melody is the lower end one. They are both full featured WYSIWG editors with built in midi playback. They have been around for at least 20 years. Wondering if they were left out of the list because reviewers thought they did not have an English localisation. If so, this is incorrect. The English localisation works fine. Previously a dialogue would appear in French occasionally, but I haven't seen this for years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D41C:9700:AC83:E7BF:29CC:B18F (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

They've been left out because there are no articles for them on the English Wikipedia (see HTML comment in the article: "No article? Discontinued? DO NOT LIST IT!"). I can only find fr:Harmony Assistant which would not survive here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Sort by Stable Release Date, not Version Number

Is there a way to sort the table by the recency of latest stable version? It looks like it currently sorts by version number, which doesn't yield any insight with those numbers being arbitrary (for example, Sibelius has adopted four-digit calendar versioning, which will ensure it's always at the top or bottom of the list when sorted in this column). Deltz025 (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)