On 6 Oct 2006 at 4:37, dhbailey wrote: > So you can build most of what you want right now. The big triangle of > what you want (incredibly realistic playback, sequencing and notation) > is in place with one big broken link, which MusicXML is working hard > to bridge, and that is between sequencing and notation.
I don't see how a sequencer could produce a MusixXML file without having a sophisticated notation capability of its own. MIDI data and notation data are just not the same thing, and the gulf between them is pretty wide. It will always be more art than science to bridge that gap. My thinking about all of this is notationally driven to begin with -- the notation conveys the music, the MIDI a single performance of that music. I think that's a much better way to work than from sequencer to notation, but that's because of the kind of music I am working with. For other kinds of music, it's not so great, but that's also the music that Finale doesn't notate very well to begin with. For instance, I'd love to see a new generation of notation software that isn't frame/measure based (even *I* want independent time signatures sometimes). But that's very hard to engineer, seems to me, and that's why it hasn't happened. I think it's very unlikely we'll see such a thing from either Finale or Sibelius, because they are engineered from the ground up with a measure-based paradigm. But if somebody does it, it will make a lot music easier to notate. Whether that alone would be enough to cause people to jump ship is another question. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
