This chart was made with Cubase 13 score edit…
Note lead-sheet has all the chord symbols and the tenor has them only on the solo section.
.Also note how the old charts can have slashes with or without stems or note heads.
Perry’s Place -Tenor.pdf (2.1 MB)
Perry’s Place -leadsheet.pdf (2.1 MB)
Would also like to see brackets optional for repeats
Hi,
I need chord symbols that are completely independent of a chord track (or eventually multiple chord tracks are possible), since the displayed chord symbols have no meaning for the structure of the DAW project and can even be different for certain note layouts depending on the different musician roles of the layouts.
Simply any chord symbol at any position.
Of course, the chord display options also need to be improved. Flexible enharmonic shifts not in context of a scale, any combination of chord extensions, such as add2, add4, b5/7/9/b13.
No automatism, user simply lists all extension.
best regards
For now, this would require to move the work into Dorico. We will consider whether we can bring track-specific chord symbols into the Score Editor in future.
I do like to have chord symbols, sometimes lock to the chord track, but it would be nice if you could hold shift or control and move it slightly to a different position if need be. Same for text.
Also, I noticed that the size of the chord symbols are larger or smaller, depending on how many stays per page you are using. It would be very helpful if we could size the fonts of the chord symbols independently.
…And I recommend to make a shortcut for this action because Cubase makes lots of weird things with notes assignation on piano staves… You can program your own shortcuts in the edition / shortcuts menu.
Hey Paul,
loving this new Dorico integration.
I am having some issues though with the conversion from piano roll to score. Often,
even with MIDI length quantized perfectly things to not match (tuplets looking weird) and sometimes note overlapping even when they are not. The DQ button gives me mixed results as well. What is the best to troubleshot this?
Please could you attach a cut down version of the project that shows the problem.
Yes, I will…I need to find the time to reduce it.
This is a big problem. Score edit has 1/10 of the editing capabilities of Cubase 13. Feels like they have taken away from us! It does format easily but I can’t see moving forward with Cubase 14 unless they can give score edit some of the old features back.
It is a step backwards in many ways. Hopefully we’ll see a good bit of growth with each new release from now on.
I believe one of the holdups with the old score editor was that only a small handful of more senior programmers had a clue how to work on it. It used a lot of older developer tools/kits and protocols that probably aren’t even supported anymore.
Dorico is a pretty big deal now, with a young set of developers who have much more modern dev tools in front of them. Maybe there is a decent sized ‘team’ assigned to bringing more things ‘Dorico’ into the Cubase editor?
Who knows what direction they’ll go with this. Lots of possibilities…
I’m expecting, and hoping for good things.
I also use Dorico, so am looking forward to better integration and file exchanges with Cubase/Nuendo in the short term. I’d love to be able to manage the score/part entry and playback stuff in the tracking DAW, and then quickly/easily get it showing in Dorico in a way where all I need to do touch up the engraving aspects, and have a score that sounds exactly like the Cubase/Nuendo project. The other way around would be nice as well. Import a Dorico project into Cubendo, and have it ‘sounding’ exactly like it did when it left Dorico (Note Performer might be an exception, since that one won’t run in any hosts other than Dorico/Sibelius/Finale).
I wonder if it would make more sense to give the option to “connect” or “synchronyze” Cubase and Dorico for those of us who own both Pro versions of those programs.
Having both programs working at the same time, creating the music in Cubase while generating the notation in Dorico, I think that could be a winning scenario for everyone.
That’s one option and I don’t disagree. I’ve always thought it would be interesting to add VST System Link to Dorico and a virtual bridge so it’d sync with Cubase on the same (or different) system. That’d work for Cubase/Nuendo users.
I already do this to some degree with a TXL MTC plugin. It’s good enough to get the Cubase transport to sync with Dorico. Still have to manually port tempo track about if the grid matters in Cubase though.
It’s not quite the same as running virtual instruments in a tracking DAW. It’s OK if I just want to sync up some audio tracks and such with Dorico.
Expression maps and things that ‘translate’ a score are a good starting place, but when it comes to fine tuning that stuff, and getting a really nice mix for every single phrase and note, nothing currently beats the power of a good tracking DAW. Perhaps in another 10 years, with AI and such, users won’t need the kind of deep control that a tracking DAW provides. We’re not quite there yet though.
Steinberg needs to offer a cheap upgrade to the full version of Dorico for all Cubase 14 users to make up for the loss of all the scoring features. We paid for an upgrade that has less features!
Cubase is not primarily about scoring. It is about tracking. Hence, your opinion might be biased towards the wrong end of the stick.
You could have tried the trial version first to make sure that C14 meets your needs in that department. In addition, you can still work with C13 if you want to.
A cheap upgrade to the full Dorico version would be nice, of course, but they can’t just give it away for next to nothing if you keep in mind that Steinberg spent an enourmous amount of money and time on the development of this independent software. Let’s wait and see how they will cross promote Cubase/Nuendo with Dorico now being implemented.
I understand they need to make money to keep making a better product. In this case the scoring feature which has been a big part of the way I work, write and record has taken several steps backwards in usefulness. To have to revert back and forth to ver 13 is not a great solution. But that’s what most of us using score edit have had to do. So why did I upgrade to 14? How long will Steinberg support 13?
The reason I have been using Cubase since it first came out (on Atari) is because you can do everything in one program.
The ethical thing to do would be to add all the Dorico features or give us a discount on the upgrade.
They were not hiding the development of the score editor. It was communicated upon release of C14 that the score editor underwent a massive change and that it would be less powerful in several areas for now.
I don’t understand why a company is in your debt (“Steinberg needs to offer a cheap upgrade”) when you did not do the most basic thing a customer ought to do before spending money: informing oneself about the product.
How about you start looking at yourself before pointing at others?
Wow…
Epic gaslighting, there.
Wording in the release notes for some things is ambiguous and can lead users to think things that are untrue before upgrading. I inquired about one major point from there after release (the MusicXML Import - which is placed and worded like it applies only to the Score Editor).
Both sides have responsibility, here, but users are limited to what the company provides, and how that material is written has an impact on what conclusions they draw before pulling out their wallets. It’s not like Steinberg has “Day One Trials,” either. You have to put your faith in them, unless you wait.
Major changes to existing components need to be on Whats New, and this includes things like the aforementioned complete removable of MusicXML Import.
I agree with the user you’re referring to. I paid for the upgrade, but I haven’t used it at all because it is completely unusable for me due to some of the changes they’ve made. The release notes were quite ambiguous (something I did question on release day - they’ve never changed them to add clarity).
I personally know others who have never come to this forum and are in the same situation as myself.
No one thinks a company is in our debt. People just have expectations that when you upgrade an application, it will not come with workflow breaking changes that force you to immediately revert to the previous version to continue working without employing time-sucking workarounds to cope with it.
I don’t understand this weird defensive posturing, either. What’s in it for you?
Steinberg could have avoided this by simply not releasing the updated score editor until it was ready. Not this Beta 1 version they’ve shoved into the software to make the update look more substantial and make sure there was something in it for the “composer crowd.”
I don’t want to escalate this issue. Just this much: I feel your usage of the term “gaslighting” is highly inappropriate.
I do have to say your reply to my post was condescending and highly inappropriate. I was just asking if there is any relief for for users that regularly used the scoring feature.