If the intention of Steinberg was to discontinue the Score Editor, then we users would’ve known this by now, wouldn’t we? I mean, we were made aware that the Generic Remote will be discontinued. Wouldn’t the same happen with the Score Editor?
(post edit)
In other words, wouldn’t a message like this one appear in the Score Editor also? (in the case people at Steinberg plan to replace the Score Editor with something else, or they decide not to invest in it anymore).
EDITOR
A new editor experience
Edit multiple parts from within the Key Editor and Drum Editor, switch between tracks with the Visibility tab and maintain an overview with the new Track display
(PRO)
EDIT: sorry, you meant score editor - no mention about it AFAIK
Thanks anyway.
What makes you think the Score Editor will be discontinued? Has there been any indication of that?
It’s pretty safe to assume the score editor is on borrowed time with Dorico out there.
I’m not too thrilled about the inevitable retirement of it and replacement with a stripped down Dorico interface. The existing score editor is clunky but IMMENSELY powerful and useful. We’ll likely get something similar to the stripped down Sibelius interface Pro Tools has.
In any case, they tend to add a couple tiny tweaks and features to it every release, so we’ll probably get a couple minor improvements in 13.
I don’t know about Cubase 13, but I imagine that in the long run it doesn’t really make sense to develop and manage two Score editors, so at some point maybe dropping the Cubase editor and replacing it with some variant of Dorico could be an option for Steinberg. Don’t know how difficult it would be to marry the legacy code of Cubase with the much newer codebase of Dorico, but one would hope that they somehow thought of that when starting Dorico….
Please, @alin89c This is completely baseless. Steinberg has not ever said anything directly or indirectly indicating such a plan.
I totally agree. There’s really nothing like it elsewhere.
Hardly likely in my opinion (and I don’t have any inside knowledge).
On its premise your speculation has a flaw because Pro Tools didn’t have a pro-level score editor built-in before Avid put one in.
The Score Editor has been in Cubase since before some of this forums’ younger users were born, and its, gestalt, if I may so say it, has not changed much. I’ll also wager that there are many Score users who never post on forums, nor social media.
The unique features like seamless integration between midi editors, access to tools like the Logical Editor while editing notation, etc., should remain in Cubase Score. And looking back on history, I think SB has maintained those features or improved them, and, it’s a real musician’s score editor. (well to me, anyway).
So, there is no writing on the wall, nor is there safety in assuming.
In closing, think about what a famous dork once said,
Don’t be a Chicken Little and talk about the demise of something without some basis in fact.
– Snidely Gornisht.
Daniel Spreadbury, the Dorico product manager, has partially addressed this before on this forum:
Then we’re on a good path.
I dunno dude. If I had created a major new notation platform, and had a userbase of that new platform demanding that Cubase get seamless integration, I’d probably prioritize the new system over the old.
As much as I love the current score editor, the more progressive route forward is ditch the old score editor and replace it with a tightly integrated “Dorcio Lite” that can be upgraded, via purchase of the full version of Dorico, into a seamlessly integrated full fledged DAW to score editor experience.
This would initially annoy me, since I find the current score editor useful for 90% of my notation needs, but then again it’d also force me to pull the trigger on Dorico. The only way I can imagine them keeping the old score editor is if they run out of resources, or decide Dorico integration is simply not economically worth the trouble.
As a user of both programs, I personally would love to be able to see a Dorico rendering of what I’ve entered into Cubase. The spacing algorithm used in the Cubase score editor is terrible, making it completely useless for me even for the simple task that I want it for, and that is to get a birds-eye view of my overall orchestration. Dorico’s default engraving looks pretty excellent by comparison, looking wonderful even before I’ve done anything manually. This has driven me to try working on most projects in Dorico, even those which I don’t need a score for, just so that I can get that score view when I want to see the big picture.
I’ve used the Cubase score editor myself quite a bit years ago, but I am still pretty surprised that it has so many defenders here. I didn’t know anybody actually was a big fan of it until this forum.
It would be a disaster to remove the Score editor. For me the score editor is the most important tool in Cubase
I’ve used the Cubase score editor myself quite a bit years ago, but I am still pretty surprised that it has so many defenders here. I didn’t know anybody actually was a big fan of it until this forum. Blockquote
I think it’s because, while clunky and incsructable on the outside, it’s full of powerful features that no other DAW has, and even ones that other notation software don’t have. To find them, you have to read the entirely standalone and separate (???) manual, and get over tons of “why would they do it like this” roadblocks in the interface, and a healthy number of horrendus bugs, which is why most people don’t use it.
What features does it have that something like Dorico doesn’t have? I’m honestly a bit curious regarding what it can do specifically that gets people so attached to it.
The issues that I have with it largely stem from how much manual work it is to lay things out that are done automatically quite nicely in the major packages. Chief among these is the note spacing algorithm, which seems like it can be set to either two modes - a completely proportional mode, where a sixteenth takes up exactly 1/4 the space of a quarter note horizontally and therefore you get a bunch of notes on top of each other when they are very short, or an equal spaced mode, in which a whole note takes up the same horizontal space as an eighth note. Both are problematic for their own reasons.
The main plus, for me, is that midi cleanup is FAR quicker in the score editor then in notation software. Using commands like “quantize lengths” combined with quantize values defined in layouts I can create usable parts in minutes. I can usually even use my un-quantized midi performances as long as the note values are long enough.
Layout is hard, but the Scores->auto layout command USUALLY helps with this. If you haven’t used that yet, find and play with it. For note spacing your main parameter would be “number of bars” per staff.
I think the “Display Quantize” as it is called is a very good aspect of the current score editor and they would probably want to keep that in there with any integrated Dorico functionality. I would agree that that is one of the best aspects of Cubase Score. Dorico itself already has support for this in a way, by separately storing a note start offset and note end offset from the note value as displayed on the score, and therefore it already doesn’t have to be perfectly quantized for this to work.
For me the issues with the layout aren’t necessarily the bars - it is the spacing of the beats and sub-beats. I don’t think Auto Layout helps with this. To get a reasonable looking score, I would have to move all of the beats around manually. That’s a huge amount of work that is hard to justify when I don’t have to do this work with other major notation packages, such as Dorico.
Hey guys. I watch a lot of Greg Ondo’s Club Cubase. Greg had mentioned their will be some kind of work with the score editor, and dorico engine integration (something like that). Their have been internal talks Greg mentioned. This was months, and months ago.
That certainly makes sense, if one is an executive trying to tell investors about “product synergy”. I believe the underlying representation of musical notes is quite different between the two products, which would make this a non-trivial bundle. This same factor accounts for the lack of tools/bridges to allow the two products to interoperate. One thing that frustrates users is the inconsistency between the two products when the concept for playing techniques. So close, yet so far apart.
I do hope that the teams are working to close these gaps over time, but I wouldn’t assume it is going to happen.
But of course, the assumption that Steinberg offerings would be similar to each other isn’t really valid.
