What is Dorico's user base and how do you use it?

Dorico
1

I don’t want to start a flame war, but if I’m honest, I was a little disappointed with the new release. I don’t think I’ll be upgrading because what is offered in the release doesn’t really meet my requirements. It could be that the expression maps update would be handy, but it got me thinking on what the user base of Dorico is?
Personally, since jumping in at Version 1 I have been amazed at the part-production Dorico is capable of. So if I was in a role that needed high quality, quickly editable part production Dorico would be my first choice. Sadly, this doesn’t apply to me.
If I was an engraver (although I don’t specifically know what an engraver does) or someone being paid to produce printed music for retail, Dorico meets this requirement admirably.
If I was in full-time teaching, again Dorico’s ability to easily mangle the printed page would suit me down to the ground. I’m not.

I’m a composer / musician who trained in music therefore finds it second nature to think of music in terms of notation rather than piano roll, or any of the other myriads of display found in software. What I really want from a ‘DAW’ is a way of recording real audio that I can record live as well as reproducing audio that I can’t record live (like an orchestra or electronic sounds) BUT which allows me for the main, to think in terms of notation.
I’m surely not alone in this?

Do I need condensing? Probably not.
Do I need figured bass? Certainly not.
Do I need to be able to create ‘contemporary graphics’ possibly for contemporary music. Certainly not.

I hope this post isn’t take the wrong way. The main reason I’ve continued to buy the upgrades up until now has been to support the team, because I can’t think of one other company (apart from possibly Presonus) where the support from the guys who make the product has been impeccable. This has been without doubt the best forum for problem solving I’ve ever been a member of, so THANK YOU very much. I can’t imagine that your business plan hasn’t followed the footfall who need these functions, but if I think for a minute what would closer meet my needs, it might be:

A program that combines both PLAY and WRITE functions. So that you can see the notation and the playback of virtual instruments.
A program that creates notation from real audio (or attempts to).
A program that supports multi-output audio so that it can be mixed outside the computer.
A program that has high quality playback right out of the box and is an integral part of the programming to make it lean.

As I said, I may be quite alone in needing these kind of things.

As with most things in life, I often know what I don’t want or need.
Defining what I do want, is a little trickier.
With much respect to the team and what they have already accomplished, I really would be interested in knowing what the user base of Dorico presently is and what it is imagined it could be.

2

To answer the question in the post title: I’m mainly in the film and music theatre world.
Do I need condensing? Good lord yes.
Do I need figured bass? Heck no what is this, the 19th century? :slight_smile:
Do I need to be able to create ‘contemporary graphics’ possibly for contemporary music. Yes! Film scores use this stuff a lot.

A program that combines both PLAY and WRITE functions. Dorico does this, you just have to switch views between modes.
A program that creates notation from real audio (or attempts to). I think we’re a few years off. Believe me I’d love to sing in my parts!
A program that supports multi-output audio so that it can be mixed outside the computer. Hmm can Dorico export stems or individual parts as audio? Someone should chime in here. Alternatively you could use Soundflower/Virtual Audio Cable to route the audio from Dorico to your DAW.
A program that has high quality playback right out of the box and is an integral part of the programming to make it lean. I’d argue that that’s what Dorico is but maybe I don’t know what you mean. I guess it’s not lean.

You’re not alone in recognizing that there are biiiig gaps in Dorico’s features. Personally I find it baffling that this update has all this figured bass stuff and I still can’t PUT A BOX AROUND SOME NOTES sdhfjskdhfkhf.

It sounds like you want a either a DAW or a notation program that doesn’t exist yet. There’s a reason so many composers use DAWs. Have you experimented with any? I understand why you would prefer to work in the “notation domain” rather than the piano roll but most working composers I know are fluent in both, regardless of their classical training.

If you’re a mac user I’d highly recommend Logic. For PC (or if you’re on a budget) Reaper is amazing.

3

In fact, there are probably a lot more professional musicians actively using figured bass in the 21st century than there were in the 19th. Just look at the amount of “early music” being performed and recorded.

(But not as many as in the 18th century, of course.)

4

+1 for figured bass, divisi enhancements, and expression map improvements, etc. All in all a very worthwhile upgrade for me. I’ll have to experiment with the pitch before duration function. Although I never found it particularly effective for me in Finale, it may be useful in some circumstances in Dorico.

5

Not every feature is for every person. And that’s ok. But Dorico needs to accommodate as wide a range of features as it practicable, to be commercially successful.

I paid for the jazzers to have Guitar Tab and Plops. And now they can pay for me to have awesome Figured Bass.

What I really want from a ‘DAW’ is a way of recording real audio that I can record live as well as reproducing audio that I can’t record live (like an orchestra or electronic sounds) BUT which allows me for the main, to think in terms of notation.

Sounds like you actually need a DAW.

6

I’m pretty sure that John, when he said he had no need for figured bass, was answering as a film and theater composer (rather than as an editor or publisher of early music, which he is admittedly not) . That was what the OP had asked, for personal experience.

I don’t use figured bass either, but I understand why it is an important feature for Dorico to support.
Pitch before duration, now? That, for me, is golden!

7

I should have maybe added I worked in advertising in the late 1980s so came up through Atari 1040STEs, samplers, Steinberg 24, then Cubase so I do know about DAWs and had to jump back into notation around 2005 with Sibelius 5 (that was a learning curve). I stayed pretty much hardware through 2000 to about 2010 when Reason brought in audio recording. I have since dabbled with software and currently own Cubase 10, Dorico 3, Presonus Studio One 4 and Presonus Notion. We’re now in 2020 and although Dorico is about the nearest thing I’ve found in being able to think in notation and have it play back, there are still some glaring omissions from the program I want. Tascam came close with a machine called the SX1 around 2001. This was a piece of hardware that had 64 channels of midi (4 ports) and a 16 track audio recorder, with an automated mixing surface. The software was written around BeOS I think. It was a great machine. If it had developed a score writing sub-program like Cubase score, who knows where it may have ended up.
I should also add, the reason for wanting notation to be an integral part of my music creation process, is because of my previous study. I do aspire one day to be in a position where my music is actually performed, rather than just being ‘played back’, hence the need for notation rather than just recording the pieces.
Forgive my ignorance, but are there early music performers (keyboardists presumably) who actually ‘extemporise’ from figured bass, rather than just ‘filling in the harmony’?

8

There is a workaround available to put boxes around notes. Add shift-X text that has blank spaces only and add a border to it. Then use the number of blank spaces plus font size controls to adjust the dimensions of the box.

9

There’s also a new workaround involving a double line with a wide gap and very long hooks.

10

I am a composer, arranger and editor/copyist with a mainly classical background. In a sense I was fortunate; my requirements are right in the middle of the developers’ bell curve, so I could start doing real work in Dorico from version 1, and never encountered any real “deal-breakers” that made me want to return to Product A. In every update so far, there have been lots of features added for which I have no real use. Guitar tab for example: I’ve never used it, and possibly never will. Drum kits and chord symbols: rarely. I hardly ever touch Play mode at all.

3.5 is a similarly mixed bag. Expression maps: wouldn’t know what to do with 'em. Pitch before duration: a workflow which is completely alien to me if it wasn’t for the Finale diehards who’ve been requesting it for years. Blank staff paper: I can see its usefulness but have never needed it. Custom lines: my writing would need to get a lot more avant-garde before I’d ever need those.

That being said, the condensing of divisi staves for me is worth the price of admission all by itself. Together with the staff visibility signposts and the improved slur positioning, those would’ve saved me literal hours in the last couple weeks alone. Also, I have noticed that features from previous updates which I never thought I’d need do come up occasionally, and it thoroughly improves my QOL to realise that this particular issue has already been addressed. So yes, Steinberg can have my €59.

11

Abolutely, in fact, it’s often the whole point in smaller groups and intimate arias. Continuo playing to support affects is a great art which takes years for keyboardists and lutenists to master. Added to that is the fact that doing such things on organ rather than harpsichord, or archlute rather than theorbo also greatly influences how a particular player will create those effects. Working with fine continuo players is one of the great musical joys in my life.

12

(rather than as an editor or publisher of early music, which he is admittedly not)

And I’ll be the first to admit it! Yes, I was responding from a personal point of view. I’m sure there are thousands of users who are stoked for figured bass!

There is a workaround available to put boxes around notes.

I should have specified “a non workaround” way. Like a certain other notation program. The broader point I was trying to convey was that there are some missing features that would seemingly be far easier to implement than a robust figured bass system, so the omission is weird to me. Another example would be being able to choose which systems get large time signatures. But of course, thousands of users have tens of thousands of “vital” features that are missing so I sympathize with the developers.

There’s also a new workaround involving a double line with a wide gap and very long hooks.

My first thought upon seeing the lines editor was “I bet I could wrestle one of these lines into a nice box…”

13

I’m a composer and arranger. I love Dorico. The main value that I get out of it is:

  1. The creators/developers have obviously read Behind Bars, and they care :slight_smile:. (In other words, they are very very knowledgeable about the innumerable rules of music engraving and automate as much of it as possible)

  2. Condensing is an absolute breakthrough for me. Saves tons of time.

  3. The flexibility of setup mode with regard to layouts is amazing for my workflow.

  4. The power of Play mode to do DAW like things is totally new in the notation software world. All musicians working on computers come from the DAW side or the notation side, usually as a result of their background. I come from the notation side, so this is a big improvement in what I’m able to do.

That’s about it to be concise. Dorico is a total breakthrough for me and I’m thrilled about it.

14

Yes, for me too!!! The ability to input articulations after the note is fantastic as well.

15

I don’t know other programs, but both Logic and Cubase can convert audio to MIDI, therefore to score. From there, it’s easy to import it into Dorico.

Paolo

16

I am very sympathetic to the OP’s thoughts. I also have no clue about what a figured bass is. At my age, I have no interest in looking backwards. But obviously there is a certain interest level in that sort of thing.

There is plenty in this release for me to like. No, it is not the priority list I would have if I were emperor of the world, but for $60 upgrade, this may be the biggest no-brainer in the history of brains.

It may be my imagination, but it 3.5 a little more responsive than 3.1 across the board. Daniel mentioned he expects to see less of the “jumping around” behaviors, and until this second, I hadn’t thought at all about that in the 60 minutes I used 3.5 today. I think that means I didn’t have any really crazy jumps. Too early to declare complete victory, but those two items alone would be plenty of justification for me to upgrade.

I will certainly benefit from the new approach to propagating properties if I can remember global is not set on by default. I have used the 3.1 lines feature extensively and expect the extensions to that feature will be goodness.

When we talk about the user base, I think there is a clear line of demarcation between people who are truly copyists versus those who need to produce scores. What I mean is that copyists may work under constraints where the music must look exactly a certain way, no matter what kind of gymnastics are required to get the job done. The rest of us tend to be more pragmatic. My interest is in getting the intent of the music communicated clearly so that musicians can sight-read it with the minimum direction and the minimum of mistakes. I have found, for example, that using the lines feature, I can sometimes express the intent clearly even though my first choice might be something that isn’t readily available in Dorico today.

17

Re: Figured Bass - Yes, many need this for the preparation of older scores. Also, it is a vital tool for teaching Music Theory; well, classical, that is. I just finished a semester of teaching this, and I would have dearly loved to have this new feature! As far as using it for template for improvisation? It is a great way to teach harmony for fretted and keyboard instruments. So yes, this is vital to many of us.

18

It seems 3.5 has quite a few features that will help the academic base. The graphic slice thing is really nice, for example, so is figured bass. With Dorico SE out, this may be an important market. I’m sure 4.0 will have amazing stuff. By the time Dorico 7.0 comes out it may be so mature that 8.0 is tough to rationalize!

19

Wow, I’m sure you didn’t mean it, but that’s an awfully dismissive comment about something that is an extremely important part of my musical world. It feels like you’re saying that Rachel Podger, Emma Kirkby, Frans Brüggen, Enrico Onofri and Nikolaus Harnoncourt indulged in “that sort of thing”. I certainly would never want to dismiss the rich musical world that inhabits your life in such a fashion. Especially since all of us who have to deal with FB either for 60% of their life like myself, or 100% of their life like many of my colleagues, knew that this feature would be a bit further down the totem pole to start with. Please, amongst professional musicians here, let’s show a little more support for each other’s sphere of creative work.

20

The majority of my professional work in Dorico is pretty specific and narrow (boringly so), but I don’t presume to know what the trends are among users beyond my extended circles. It’s a big musical world out there.

And it’s for that reason that, as Ben said, I’ve been happy to support the development of things I’ll (probably) never use, like guitar tab. In part, because that same version brought me one little feature that finally allowed me to leave Finale forever: lyric baseline adjustment. Which most users probably don’t care about.