Score Editor observations and suggestions

[ceanganb]

I’m not sure of how many of you use it, but I love the Score Editor and I’m using for every new project within Cubase 6. But since I started using it, there are many things that would heavily benefit the workflow, in my opinion, and I will post the most important things I’ve seen or would like to see in Score Editor. Please, give any feedback on these and correct me if I’m wrong on my points:

• When ´legato´ is selected in Expression Maps, there should be a way of settings a slur to activate the legato articulation. I understand that it’s not always that a slur means legato, but it is in most cases and would be very useful to have a linked slur; an option like ´insert legato slur´ would be great, preferably with settings to define the amount of overlapping of the inside notes and, maybe, shortening the last note of the slur to disconnect from the next note.

• Selecting slurs is very difficult, and in some busy scores is almost impossible without using layers.

• Hairpins could be very improved. I would like to be able to:
a) resize a hairpin vertically, making it ´fatter´ or ´thinner´;
b) set different visual and playback points, you always have to decide between score readability and playability because of dynamic markings and hairpin collisions; it could be done using modifiers maybe (i.e. shift+drag for playback points and alt+drag for display); be able to set playback points to display points and vice versa; set crescendo/decrescendo curves (exp., linear, etc.);
c) Overture 4 has two excellent hairpin features that Cubase could use: create a hairpin with built-in initial and final dynamic and optionally displaying them, and setting inner points for the crescendo/decrescendo curves, this way replacing preset curves.

• There could be another Expression Map feature that I would love to see: sort of an ´unlinked´ command that you could insert anywhere in the score and that would send a keyswitch or a CC. Why? Let’s consider one case: I use Kirk Hunter Concert Strings II and in the same patch I can have 4 different section sizes, selectable by keyswitches. The way Expression Maps is implemented now, I would have to create 4 times all the articulations I already have created to be able to switch section sizes from the Expression Map, which is too much work and makes the articulation/dynamics lane unusable with so many rows; there would be many other occasions where such a feature would be useful.

• You should be able to copy/paste articulations inside Expression Map Setup, that would be a huge time saver for large expression maps.

• I believe articulation and dynamics lane should be separated and each one be individually resizable.

• I’d love to have articulation/dynamics lane inside score editor. I understand having controller lanes would be harder because of score spacing, but articulation/dynamics are directly related with scores.

• Better control of display in Edit Mode; I’d like to scroll left/right independent of the cursor position like in other editors, and see only one staff line when only one track is selected, even if there’s space left behind.

I hope I was clear in my observations and suggestions. Again, any feedback is highly appreciated.

[Conman]

I always wonder about why some people sepnd a lot of money buying “Concert String” sample libraries who then somehow need the samples to read the music as well. Just it’s curious, I mean, why buy a top whack sample library that you’re going to replace with humans?
I mean if you can afford concert string libraries then one can presumably, also afford Sibelius. Cubase Score is mainly designed for PRINTING the score for humans to read. A fair amount of the setting up of Score is done using the other editors to tidy up the midi generated material.
Score is flexible and it’s left up to the user to set up for the way they work.

[vic_france]

@ceanganb

• When ´legato´ is selected in Expression Maps, there should be a way of settings a slur to activate the legato articulation. I understand that it’s not always that a slur means legato, but it is in most cases and would be very useful to have a linked slur; an option like ´insert legato slur´ would be great, preferably with settings to define the amount of overlapping of the inside notes and, maybe, shortening the last note of the slur to disconnect from the next note.

Yes, but I think you are talking about two different things here…

1. If you mean, insert a slur symbol, to make all notes under it play with legato length (as if using the Legato function itself, but as a realtime play function…i.e. removing the slur would return the notes to their original length), yes, of course, that would be great, but I think you can see what a big new function that would be (and that could be used, ipso facto, exclusively in the Score Editor, unless it were to include also a new Lane in the Key Editor, similar to VST Dynamics)

2. If you mean, have the Slur symbol available as a VST Expression symbol (which then triggers whatever you have set up for that particular slot), the only problem is that all symbols used so far do not have a visual “length” (i.e. there are no line-type symbols).
   The closest workaround for now would be to use some other symbol to trigger that slot, then Hide the symbol in the Score Editor, then add a regular Slur.

• Selecting slurs is very difficult, and in some busy scores is almost impossible without using layers.

Yes, it can be a bit “fiddly”. It is sometimes easier to “rubber band” select, in the hope of catching one of the slur’s handles.

• Hairpins could be very improved. I would like to be able to:
a) resize a hairpin vertically, making it ´fatter´ or ´thinner´;

I’d like that too (could be added to the hairpin’s Contextual menu, and also a default “height” in Score Settings>Project>Spacings")

b) set different visual and playback points, you always have to decide between score readability and playability because of dynamic markings and hairpin collisions; it could be done using modifiers maybe (i.e. shift+drag for playback points and alt+drag for display); be able to set playback points to display points and vice versa; set crescendo/decrescendo curves (exp., linear, etc.);

You are obviously referring to the hairpins in VST Dynamics. It currently works as follows…
It starts working at the point where you insert it, but continues untill the next Dynamic event (regardless of the length of the hairpin, which is, itself, purely graphical… so you can adjust its visual end point as you wish. If the current start point is a problem, visually, then only thing I can think of is to Hide the Dynamic hairpin (which will continue to function nonetheless), and insert a regular “graphic” hairpin to replace it.

c) Overture 4 has two excellent hairpin features that Cubase could use: create a hairpin with built-in initial and final dynamic and optionally displaying them, and setting inner points for the crescendo/decrescendo curves, this way replacing preset curves.

Cubase used to have this!.. there is such a symbol, in the Dynamics palette, which would be active if the old function, “MIDI Meaning” was activated. “Swings and roundabouts”, I suppose .

• There could be another Expression Map feature that I would love to see: sort of an ´unlinked´ command that you could insert anywhere in the score and that would send a keyswitch or a CC. Why? Let’s consider one case: I use Kirk Hunter Concert Strings II and in the same patch I can have 4 different section sizes, selectable by keyswitches. The way Expression Maps is implemented now, I would have to create 4 times all the articulations I already have created to be able to switch section sizes from the Expression Map, which is too much work and makes the articulation/dynamics lane unusable with so many rows; there would be many other occasions where such a feature would be useful.

Without thinking this though too far ( ), could you not get around this by adding another MIDI track (without EXpression Map) routed to the same output, with just the necessary key trigger notes on it?

• You should be able to copy/paste articulations inside Expression Map Setup, that would be a huge time saver for large expression maps.

I can see what you are getting at, but would you want to copy/paste a slot (but you wouldn’t want to paste to the same trigger note, would you?), or simply copy/paste an output mapping to an existing slot?

• I believe articulation and dynamics lane should be separated and each one be individually resizable.

That would be useful

• I’d love to have articulation/dynamics lane inside score editor. I understand having controller lanes would be harder because of score spacing, but articulation/dynamics are directly related with scores.

You pointed out the difficulty yourself. But you could always have the Key Editor open at the same time (with “Link Editors” active)

• Better control of display in Edit Mode; I’d like to scroll left/right independent of the cursor position like in other editors, and see only one staff line when only one track is selected, even if there’s space left behind.

Yes, this has bitten be too, occasionally

[ceanganb]

@Conman

I always wonder about why some people sepnd a lot of money buying “Concert String” sample libraries who then somehow need the samples to read the music as well. Just it’s curious, I mean, why buy a top whack sample library that you’re going to replace with humans?
I mean if you can afford concert string libraries then one can presumably, also afford Sibelius. Cubase Score is mainly designed for PRINTING the score for humans to read. A fair amount of the setting up of Score is done using the other editors to tidy up the midi generated material.
Score is flexible and it’s left up to the user to set up for the way they work.

I wouldn’t say that. CS II has its quirks, but it’s a highly usable library and has beautiful expressive strings, that’s why I got it mainly, and I’m surely not replacing with humans but myself programming.

Yes, Sibelius, Finale, but I want to work exclusively inside Cubase, because the workflow advantages are so many I won’t even try to explain it to you. I don’t really care about a perfect looking score, but a score that reads and plays well without the need for much editing on other editors; Expression Maps are obviously created with this intent, and there is room for improvements. Like I said, it’s already very usable -and I effectively use it! -, but why not make it even better? I don’t think this ´get Sibelius´ has anything to do with my requests.

[ceanganb]

ceanganb wrote:• When ´legato´ is selected in Expression Maps, there should be a way of settings a slur to activate the legato articulation. I understand that it’s not always that a slur means legato, but it is in most cases and would be very useful to have a linked slur; an option like ´insert legato slur´ would be great, preferably with settings to define the amount of overlapping of the inside notes and, maybe, shortening the last note of the slur to disconnect from the next note.

Yes, but I think you are talking about two different things here…

1. If you mean, insert a slur symbol, to make all notes under it play with legato length (as if using the Legato function itself, but as a realtime play function…i.e. removing the slur would return the notes to their original length), yes, of course, that would be great, but I think you can see what a big new function that would be (and that could be used, ipso facto, exclusively in the Score Editor, unless it were to include also a new Lane in the Key Editor, similar to VST Dynamics)

2. If you mean, have the Slur symbol available as a VST Expression symbol (which then triggers whatever you have set up for that particular slot), the only problem is that all symbols used so far do not have a visual “length” (i.e. there are no line-type symbols).
   The closest workaround for now would be to use some other symbol to trigger that slot, then Hide the symbol in the Score Editor, then add a regular Slur.

1. I think It could be used in key editor and list editor as well, it only would have to show a slur-like symbol in the row or another special mark, differentiating this from other articulations.

2. My though was closer to the second option, to have one slur to trigger a legato VST Expression, but the last note could not have the extended length, so it would have to be a special case. I’ve been using the workaround you suggest, but it would be much faster to have a special slur to do that. Just a suggestion that I believe would not take this much effort from the programmers (easy to say from outside, heh?).

b) set different visual and playback points, you always have to decide between score readability and playability because of dynamic markings and hairpin collisions; it could be done using modifiers maybe (i.e. shift+drag for playback points and alt+drag for display); be able to set playback points to display points and vice versa; set crescendo/decrescendo curves (exp., linear, etc.);

You are obviously referring to the hairpins in VST Dynamics. It currently works as follows…
It starts working at the point where you insert it, but continues until the next Dynamic event (regardless of the length of the hairpin, which is, itself, purely graphical… so you can adjust its visual end point as you wish. If the current start point is a problem, visually, then only thing I can think of is to Hide the Dynamic hairpin (which will continue to function nonetheless), and insert a regular “graphic” hairpin to replace it.

The hide/show workaround can work, and while the point of the suggestion is avoiding so many workarounds, you even gave me an idea I don’t think it’s possible yet: to create a macro for showing regular hairpins as hiding the playable ones and vice versa. Maybe I will need to use layers for that? I’ll check, but it might work. Anyway, playback hairpins could be improved as well.

c) Overture 4 has two excellent hairpin features that Cubase could use: create a hairpin with built-in initial and final dynamic and optionally displaying them, and setting inner points for the crescendo/decrescendo curves, this way replacing preset curves.

Cubase used to have this!.. there is such a symbol, in the Dynamics palette, which would be active if the old function, “MIDI Meaning” was activated. “Swings and roundabouts”, I suppose > > .

Yes, the idea is to have that symbol working with playback as well. Also, fp, fpp,sffz and all the others. I’m sure they will be playable at some point of Cubase development.

• There could be another Expression Map feature that I would love to see: sort of an ´unlinked´ command that you could insert anywhere in the score and that would send a keyswitch or a CC. Why? Let’s consider one case: I use Kirk Hunter Concert Strings II and in the same patch I can have 4 different section sizes, selectable by keyswitches. The way Expression Maps is implemented now, I would have to create 4 times all the articulations I already have created to be able to switch section sizes from the Expression Map, which is too much work and makes the articulation/dynamics lane unusable with so many rows; there would be many other occasions where such a feature would be useful.

Without thinking this though too far ( > > > > ), could you not get around this by adding another MIDI track (without EXpression Map) routed to the same output, with just the necessary key trigger notes on it?

Good idea, thanks for that!

• You should be able to copy/paste articulations inside Expression Map Setup, that would be a huge time saver for large expression maps.

I can see what you are getting at, but would you want to copy/paste a slot (but you wouldn’t want to paste to the same trigger note, would you?), or simply copy/paste an output mapping to an existing slot?

I wouldn’t care pasting the same trigger note, it’s much easier to edit slots than create ones from scratch.

• I’d love to have articulation/dynamics lane inside score editor. I understand having controller lanes would be harder because of score spacing, but articulation/dynamics are directly related with scores.

You pointed out the difficulty yourself. But you could always have the Key Editor open at the same time (with “Link Editors” active)

Yes, but they don’t sync the cursor vertically, that’s why the request. Since Dynamic Mappings only use start/end points, that would be easier to implement.

Thank you very much for your feedback and ideas, vic_france!

[Conman]

Yes, Sibelius, Finale, but I want to work exclusively inside Cubase, because the workflow advantages are so many I won’t even try to explain it to you

Oh, do tell. Just one advantage will do.

But all you have to do is read the manual three times and then ask Vic France.

[Laurence_Payne]

@Conman

I mean if you can afford concert string libraries then one can presumably, also afford Sibelius. Cubase Score is mainly designed for PRINTING the score for humans to read. A fair amount of the setting up of Score is done using the other editors to tidy up the midi generated material.
Score is flexible and it’s left up to the user to set up for the way they work.

Funny thing - when a Sibelius user complains that his excellent score-publishing application lacks detailed control over playback, we recommend moving to a sequencer like Cubase!

Scores are for reading. Sibelius makes a pretty good job of translating notation into performance using sample playback. Cubase has further editing options (which Sibelius lacks) for precise control of tempo, note position and anything else that can be modified by either a MIDI controller or a key-switch. But the WORST place to try to do this is in the Score Edit page.

[ceanganb]

@Laurence Payne

Scores are for reading. Sibelius makes a pretty good job of translating notation into performance using sample playback. Cubase has further editing options (which Sibelius lacks) for precise control of tempo, note position and anything else that can be modified by either a MIDI controller or a key-switch. But the WORST place to try to do this is in the Score Edit page.

Well, my vote for the worst place to edit MIDI is the List Editor . VST Expression is a big step towards deeper MIDI editing in Score Editor, and improvements are always welcome. My observations and requests are not a paradigm shift, only enhancements that I feel are relatively easy to implement. After all, DAW differences are all about workflow, right?, they’ll essentially sound the same. Cubase 6 is, by far, my favorite DAW to work, so I come here to ask it to improve, not to change . You bet next version of Sibelius will have playback enhancements as well, this kind of integration is a trend.

[Laurence_Payne]

@ceanganb

You bet next version of Sibelius will have playback enhancements as well, this kind of integration is a trend.

Ah well, if it’s a TREND…

A lot of Sibelius users wish it would stop trying to be a performance sequencer and concentrate on being a top-flight score publisher. A lot of users are producing scores that will never be read by a live musician - they’d be much happier in Cubase. Score Edit lacks the layout refinement of Sibelius or Finale, but it’s perfectly adequate for composing, and the tools for tweaking playback to your heart’s content are only a click away.

I used to use Score Edit a lot in Cubase. Over the years I’ve become less note-bound and mostly moved to the piano-roll view, (whatever it’s called). List Edit is great for masking event types, (and editing SysEx strings on the rare occasions I need to). If I’m preparing a score for someone else to play, it’s straight to Sibelius - and usually with a fresh start, I rarely transfer files between the two programs.

[ceanganb]

@Laurence Payne

@ceanganb

You bet next version of Sibelius will have playback enhancements as well, this kind of integration is a trend.

Ah well, if it’s a TREND…

A lot of Sibelius users wish it would stop trying to be a performance sequencer and concentrate on being a top-flight score publisher. A lot of users are producing scores that will never be read by a live musician - they’d be much happier in Cubase. Score Edit lacks the layout refinement of Sibelius or Finale, but it’s perfectly adequate for composing, and the tools for tweaking playback to your heart’s content are only a click away.

I used to use Score Edit a lot in Cubase. Over the years I’ve become less note-bound and mostly moved to the piano-roll view, (whatever it’s called). List Edit is great for masking event types, (and editing SysEx strings on the rare occasions I need to). If I’m preparing a score for someone else to play, it’s straight to Sibelius - and usually with a fresh start, I rarely transfer files between the two programs.

A GOOD trend, I must say

I’m really not after making great looking and playing back scores. I’m trying to write music and get it to playback the way I intended it to. If it was just one click away, I’d be happy, most times it is many clicks away, one editor away, few minutes away. But, after all, I can get everything I want to be done in Cubase, so I’m happy for now. Can’t I be just happier?

Cheers

[Conman]

I wouldn’t input midi in the Score page. It’s not built for it. It is very graphics intensive which can lead to lots of load on the system which is why many have unexplained crashes there. On some setups the midi will be vying with the graphics for ram-space and bus-space.
They should make this clearer to new users though.
The midi related stuff like the Step Input is for the odd edit and compatibility with the other Editors appearance rather than function. I suppose in one sense the Score page is the only true Editor as opposed to the others where you can fully input music without hazards.

I don’t know if it’s still there somewhere but early versions of the manual clearly stated that it was for printing only. And one more thing if the music sounds right it will rarely look right in the Score and if it looks right it will rarely sound right which is why the manual also recommends that Score editing be done on a track copy.
Logical really and explains why Cubase can’t really reliably be used, in most cases, for both playback (of a natural sounding performance anyway) and also allow reading a clean score.

[steve]

Where do you get that info, conman?

[ceanganb]

@Conman

I wouldn’t input midi in the Score page. It’s not built for it. It is very graphics intensive which can lead to lots of load on the system which is why many have unexplained crashes there. On some setups the midi will be vying with the graphics for ram-space and bus-space.
They should make this clearer to new users though.
The midi related stuff like the Step Input is for the odd edit and compatibility with the other Editors appearance rather than function. I suppose in one sense the Score page is the only true Editor as opposed to the others where you can fully input music without hazards.

I don’t know if it’s still there somewhere but early versions of the manual clearly stated that it was for printing only. And one more thing if the music sounds right it will rarely look right in the Score and if it looks right it will rarely sound right which is why the manual also recommends that Score editing be done on a track copy.
Logical really and explains why Cubase can’t really reliably be used, in most cases, for both playback (of a natural sounding performance anyway) and also allow reading a clean score.

Sorry, buddy, but I can’t disagree more. There are tools in the score editor specifically made to make natural performances look good (display quantize is one of them), along with the fact that VST Expression is the most important step in this direction in any DAW. There’s now a moderate MIDI integration in the Score Editor now that’s going to be stronger in time, so it’s up to us, customers, to express which points can be reinforced in this integration.

The idea is, there are some difficult pieces that would be virtually impossible to make them look right in Cubase Score Editor, but the vast majority of arrangements can be adequately shown as a score in C6. For those very complex arrangements, there are Sibelius and Finale and others, and it’s their scope. The average needs can and should be done within DAWs, I don’t see why it should be otherwise. DAW users are avid to have stronger score / MIDI integration (you can red any other DAW forum to know what I mean), and Steinberg is leading the efforts in the this direction, this is the most important reason I finally bought Cubase. No need to be resistant to this movement, accept that there are different needs than yours.

[Conman]

Don’t mind disagreement. Just trying to make your life easier. I rather think the design mindset is still that Cubase is mainly a recording package with many extra tools. I reckon that to get any changes to the way you see things you will have a harder job changing Steinberg’s ethic as I have had changing yours.
But change is not always a bad thing so good luck.

[ceanganb]

@Conman

Don’t mind disagreement. Just trying to make your life easier. I rather think the design mindset is still that Cubase is mainly a recording package with many extra tools. I reckon that to get any changes to the way you see things you will have a harder job changing Steinberg’s ethic as I have had changing yours.
But change is not always a bad thing so good luck.

Ok, so one last disagreement : I insist my post is not about changing the way it works, but refining it. So no need to change Steinberg’s way of life, which is, again, following the score-MIDI integration path. Neither mine.

That’s been a nice and valid discussion anyway

Regards.

[ceanganb]

3.5 versions later, I can’t help feeling sad for none of these improvements in the integration of Score Editor/Expression Maps.