Dorico important Lacks

I bought 2 Dorico days ago and got the activation code today.
After a few hours with it, I was very disappointed with the 1.0 version.
I believe Dorico can will become a great music writing software, but at the moment the 1.0 version does not meet the demands of a professional arranger.
I bought it for some new features that were demonstrated in the videos of the steinberg seemed pretty good, and because I believed on Steinberg brand and the standard of quality.
But I think that the right would be steinberg wait to have all the basic features to get to the level of a sibelius or even the Notion and release that after finished. Some lacks don’t strike me as the level of such a program money value and what he proposes to do.
Here go some unacceptable points.

1-it is not possible to write a chord sheet.
2-it is not possible to play a audio track to write the arrangement following the base which was recorded.
3-when you select a note and move up or down with the up and down arrow we can’t hear what note we are dragging or moving.
4-there’s no short cut to go forward or back while we write the notes, only through the Transport.
5-we cannot write in realtime.

These are some of the features that make the Dorico not prepared to meet the writing arrangements for those who work daily with 4 or 5 daily arrangements.
If I am wrong in my assessment please help me and show me how to solve and make these featurings.
I hope you update Dorico to became the best score software of the market!
TM

But I think that the right would be steinberg wait to have all the basic features to get to the level of a sibelius or even the Notion and release that after finished.

Dorico is brand new…I feel that to expect the first version of this completely new program (which is roughly only 4 years old, and just released) to have a comparable feature set to either Sib (first released in April 1993, so is 23 yrs old) or Fin (released 1988, which is 28 yrs old) old is really not very realistic.

Or fair.

(and in fact development of Sibelius was started in 1986, so its actually 30 yrs old. It was released in 1993)

And I believe Notion was initially released in 2005–so its been around at least 11-12 years.

Daniel and team and Steinberg have been COMPLETELY honest and open, many times about Dorico and what it would and wouldn’t contain in its initial release, and the first update is scheduled to be released at the end of this month (November).

So please give it a chance, and Im sure you’ll be MORE than happy you did:)

Thanks Bob

Well, they advertised Dorico as being “The new gold standard”, so what would they expect us to expect? The first sentence on the Dorico page currently reads: “Dorico redefines the gold standard in scoring software.”

They should have writte somehing along the lines of “Dorico is a new piece of software that looks quite promising but still is under heavy development and currently is far away from being used in a professional environment.”

But that’s not what they did. They themselves set our expectation of Dorico being better then the other players on the field.
They should not be surprised by all the criticism they are receiving right now.

Ok, I don’t normally get into these kinds of conversations, but I think I need to this time. So, please bear with me for a moment…

What things that Dorico does now is not better than the other players on the field? Sure it doesn’t have some features, but what about the things it has?

To you and @torcuato I would ask, what determines a “basic” feature? Software is NEVER finished. It can always improve. There will always be features to add. There will always be bugs to fix. That’s the reality of software development. Would you care to enumerate how you would have prioritized Dorico’s feature set? Which ones would you have left out of v1.0? There’s bound to be someone who’d disagree with you. I’m only saying that everyone has different needs and that the needs will be filled in time. Maybe now’s not the right time for you to use Dorico.

Can you blame Daniel and the team for wanting to make the features work really well rather than getting you “something” that kind-of works? Kudos to them for sticking to that mantra. That’s how you redefine (and sometimes become) the standard.

Sorry, but I can’t agree with this in the slightest. Apart from the absolute transparency of the team as to what Dorico can and cannot do, what else could they have possibly done to reduce the criticism? I’m not saying that everyone should be completely satisfied with where Dorico is now, because I know that Daniel and the team sure aren’t. I know plenty of professionals who have considered the current feature set and have decided against purchasing it for now, BUT if someone decides to take the plunge and purchases it, they know FULL WELL what it can and can’t do. I can’t imagine anyone paying this kind of money without doing their homework. There is no reason to complain about known missing features. And for those features that didn’t make either list, let the team know that they’d be useful in your work! Chances are you’re not the only one.

There’s definitely a learning curve as with any new tool. Take the time to learn how it works. Personally, I wish the documentation would have been better to start with, but that’s coming, too. Feature requests, bug reports, and patience are the right way to go from here.

Thanks for hearing me out. Keep moving forward.

By the way, I’m not affiliated with Steinberg in any way (i.e., I have nothing to gain from my comments), but I have had the good fortune of being a beta tester from the beginning. So, I thought I’d give a couple of basic progress stats to (hopefully) put to rest any concerns over the team’s commitment to making Dorico better and more feature rich with every release:

  • Total updates/bug fixes from beta1 to official release of v1.0.0: ~ 300
  • Total updates/bug fixes since official release of v1.0.0 to the latest beta: ~ 150
  • Average updates/fixes per beta release: ~ 60

That is hugely impressive, if you ask me.

I’m guessing you didn’t see the section “Features In Depth” at the bottom of this page, where they list some of the limitations you mentioned, albeit with a caveat that the list is subject to change (which could be for the better of for the worse…). https://www.steinberg.net/en/products/dorico/what_is_dorico.html

This list is certainly not hidden, but IMO Steinberg could make it a little more prominent, and/or tone down the marketing speak like “redefines the gold standard”. I suspect they won’t do any of this.

I imagine that high-level full-time professional copyists, composers, and publishing houses haven’t made the switch yet (at least not in significant numbers) due to all the limitations.

I got Dorico because the educational cross-grade was reasonably priced, but once I started trying to learn it, the reality set in that I can’t use it for any of my professional work yet. I’m confident it’ll eventually be great, but I also have a hunch that’ll take at least a couple of years. For now, I have to stick with Sibelius, which I know well after nearly a decade and a half of use.

I totally agree ! This is not yet a Gold Standard as they put it, so where is the honesty ? I regret my purchase, even with cross-grade price.

well! In short, really Dorico may prove to be an amazing software.
But its still is not the GOLD STANDARD as it was announced.
Not being able to write a chord sheet is not GOLD STANDARD.
Do not use in Rewire to write an arrangement listening to a recorded session, or have the possibility of playing an audio file is also not the GOLD STANDARD. But I really believe its will become the best software, because the team that developed it is a team of high level.I belive them! So I didn’t expect missing things so basic to the level that are the sofwares nowadays ofers for musical production.
It is important to also make it clear that those who spent the money was me, then I have every right to express what I think. I wish that it becomes THE GOLD STANDARD, and we can all be happy working with Dorico. For now for my work are missing several features.

Hi, tisimst.
Thanks for your answer.

What things that Dorico does now is not better than the other players on the field?

I’m not saying that the features it already has are bad. As I said, the features that are done look really promising, and the new concepts are amazing.

Sure it doesn’t have some features, but

The way you put it, it sounds as if there were just some minor issues that have to be sorted out. But that’s not the case at all.
If music notation software can’t add first and second endings to repeats, then I can not use it. Music notation without chord symbols? Oh come on…

Would you care to enumerate how you would have prioritized Dorico’s feature set? Which ones would you have left out of v1.0?

That’s not how marketing works. If you go and shout “I’m the best of the best!” to everybody, then you have to live up to it from day 1. You can’t say “I’m Gold Standard” and then have version 1 that is missing rather important features that your competitors have had for 10 years or longer.

That’s all I’m saying: I’m perfectly aware that software sometimes needs to start with a smaller featureset that are going to be added later on, or that there will be bugs in your new tool. But then please (please!) change your marketing according to it.
(And no, I would not consider putting the list of major features that are not yet included on the last paragraph of an 11 screens long “What is Dorico?” page as being upfront.)

So my question to you would be: Would you consider Dorico in its current state as Gold Standard?

The one thing missing from the discussion so far is that Dorico is first and foremost a scoring program and engraving is at its heart - this was made clear from Daniel’s early development diary write-ups.

I think many would argue that this has to come first in terms of the sequence of “things to get right”; other stuff can be bolted on, whereas how Dorico presents the music on the page cannot so easily be changed at a later date.

Already Dorico has proved to be streets ahead of its rivals for engraving and qualifies for the description “Gold Standard”.

The rest will come in time. It’s disappointing that much of the criticism concentrates on the perceived lack of whatever features an individual feels is essential and no-one seems to grasp that the programmers have got the “core” of Dorico exactly right.

Thanks for your answer, Estigy :wink:

Sorry, I’m not saying that at all. I’m only saying that they have to prioritize the feature set.

If music notation software can’t add first and second endings to repeats, then I can not use it. Music notation without chord symbols? Oh come on…

The developers have to start somewhere, don’t they? I can only imagine the kind of pressure the team was under from upper management to get something out the door. Personally, I don’t use chord symbols much, so I can just use plain text when I need to (or better yet, use Sib/Fin chord fonts!) until something else is natively implemented. I would like to have repeat ending lines. I’d also like to have pedal lines/markup, but those will have to be text also for now.

If you go and shout “I’m the best of the best!” to everybody, then you have to live up to it from day 1. You can’t say “I’m Gold Standard” and then have version 1 that is missing rather important features that your competitors have had for 10 years or longer.

I completely agree with you, but I’m not talking about which features it does/doesn’t have compared to its competitors. I’m talking about the quality of its features and I’m pretty sure that’s what Steinberg is referring to as well.

That’s all I’m saying: I’m perfectly aware that software sometimes needs to start with a smaller feature set that are going to be added later on, or that there will be bugs in your new tool. But then please (please!) change your marketing according to it.
(And no, I would not consider putting the list of major features that are not yet included on the last paragraph of an 11 screens long “What is Dorico?” page as being upfront.)

I don’t disagree with you. It’s a tricky line to walk–how much do we taut XYZ’s strong points while still being transparent about what it lacks? Most companies don’t advertise what their software CAN’T do, except potentially in something like a development roadmap in a wiki that takes 7 clicks to get to (if you can get to it at all). So, I’d say there’s something to be said for the Team even bringing it up on a relatively-front page. That alone proves to me that the team cares about the needs of potential users, knowing that many are professionals who need certain functionality that isn’t present yet. Wow! Caring about customers’ needs? What a concept.

So my question to you would be: Would > you > consider Dorico in its > current > state as Gold Standard?

In terms of what it can do, compared to its commercial competitors? Absolutely.

We have to consider that we’re not trying to find faults and Yes point out what every professional needs to perform their work.
In my case I am a professional with over 30 years of career, and currently work as a record producer of The voice here in Brazil, I have to do an average of 30 songs per month, that with basic arrangements, strings, brass.
For example in a writing of chords with several accidents writing text does not work. I’m still using my Sibelius, even have an update.
My concern is to be able to perform my job. And we have to remember that this software was purchased and not a gift. I really hope the updates!

Is Dorico “The Gold Standard”? I 100% say so. I have been in the engraving business for many years, mostly freelance work. Lots of arrangements for Marching bands, drumlines, concert bands, etc. In those areas, I DO NOT need chords. To claim that Dorico is not useable for professionals is rather a joke. You could always get around repeats by simply doubling the music. There are minor work arounds for many things.

You have a right to say that you need and want chords. And you have the right to be upset that you didn’t do the appropriate research. But to say the program is useless without chords, is quite incorrect. Maybe it is useless to you. And I will buy that argument. But to speak for everyone, come on… that’s quite a joke.

Robby

I would imagine that some of us are here because Daniel has put his faith in this product and I am backing him all the way to get there with it. I think that putting it out now gives us mortals a better chance of getting to grips with it from the early days.
If it is not what you need now for your particular requirements then carry on using what you were before but try using Dorico for simple things that it can do and grow with the updates.

Hi Robby,thanks your point of view.
Yes that’s exactly what I said, that doesn’t work for me. And I’m still using the Notion that work currently. I’m not saying that the program is bad. And this post is not a fight. Is just a consumer saying what he feel with the program.
And i will be happy with dorico working for many diferents pro users.

Yes King2b, thats the point, i posted its with the intention of help to Dorico Team with many kinds of visions about the many kinds of pro users.If they are looking for the market thats can help.In my working group are 5 arrangers,pop arrangers that after see me work with Notion they decided start to work with score programs to help his workflow.They never has used score programs before.There is now many musicians trying to realy work this way.
Imagine how much I believe in Dorico I spent my money without being sure exactly how it worked with features that even working fine with notion.And i bought Dorico by the new features I’ve seen in videos. Why really seemed a step ahead of others. But lose some features that were very important, too.
So my decision is expected these new features are added to be able to continue working in peace.
Thanks Guys!