Where Overture and Score Writer users interact
It is currently Tue Aug 04, 2020 6:11 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:04 pm 

Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 90
Suggested improvements (posted also in Ove General Discussion-Top 10 bags list)

The following suggestions derive from Ove inefficiencies encountered when importing a ‘midi 1’ file originating from Sonar sequenser into Ove for preparing the score of music already programmed –written in piano roll- in Sonar. This method is certainly not the standard way of composing classical or contemporary music. It is however a very convenient, clever and modern way, as you do not have to deal with rests and you can make all kind of changes very easily while listening to the music instantly (assuming the sequenser is connected to a sampler of course). Here are some of the Overture inefficiencies when preparing the score of music written in such a way.
1. Most of the inefficiencies are related to the correct interpretation of tuplets.
1.1. The line of the tuplet bracket should always be located by default at the side of the stems, not that of heads. This is the correct notation according to Kurt Stone’s Notation book- which BTW is the current standard of notation). Besides it would help if this bracket line were horizontal by default.
1.2. Ove does not recognize the kind of tuplet in the midi file, resulting in a series of small value pauses (in the score) which have to be deleted and the correct tuplet be written in (the score) manually. This is a great nuisance indeed. There are instances however that a triplet is correctly recognized and presented as such in Ove or even a quintuplet if properly ‘designed’ in Sonar (e.g. 5 sixteenths scaled down at 80% ). The problem is great however when there is one or more pauses inside a tuplet, or when the tuplets are of higher order (7, 9, or11). Ove cannot recognize such a tuplet, therefore representing exactly what it sees in the midi file by filling-in the gaps with lots of rests. I wonder whether there is a way for making Ove more “clever” in this respect.
1.3. Fixing a second tuplet in a certain bar, destroys all the manual adjustments that you just made on the the first one, (enen if none of the “auto” bottons is checked) having to start all-over again.
1.4. Too many clicks required for bringing up the tuplet menu (Select notes/ Notes/Group/Tuplet menu). You could have a keyboard shortcut after selecting the notes you want to tuplet. Besides, a wrong tuplet number entry should be possible to be corrected by double clicking on the (wrong) tuplet number (instead of going through the same procedure of bringing up the tuplet menu).
1.5. Sometimes –unknown cause- the number ‘3’ appears on top of a triplet and there is no way of erasing it for placing a bracket with a ‘3’. What you then do is to try to make the two 3s coincide! (not professional at all!)
2. The “Let ring” or “Let vibrate” sign (an open tie arc) should come to the right of the note by default instead of to the left (as it stands today). Several tricks are applied to bring the arc to the right of the note but that is not pro at all!
3. Grace notes (or appoggiaturas): A problem causing area. When converting a normal note to “grace” one, or when more than 2 notes are introduced as grace notes, the other notes in the bar jump around and strange things happen in general.
4. When changing a certain note pitch, or rest value, or deleting a note, the other notes are affected in the related measure (i.e. they “jump” around, the horizontal beam becomes inclined again, rests are “corrected”, etc.) This is also annoying a lot!
To my mind, when changing some sign (note, accidental or other), the other signs in the bar should not move at all if the Options/Auto functions are not energized.
5. Some suggestions related to “score”:
5.1. All beams to be horizontal by default. (this is a personal wish for aesthetic reasons only).
5.2. Be able to hide empty bars (as well as staves) with simple actions (e.g. see scores by Penderecki, Lutoslawski and others.)
5.3. Sometimes a third staff is necessary for the piano. You insert such staff (or ‘track’ according to Ove terminology) and you adjust the staff title position in the front page to be in the middle of the 3 staves (tracks). In the next page, or system, you hide the 3rd staff (as you do not need it anymore) but now the staff title does not come in- between the two staves and, if you do that,.the alignment of the first page is lost. You should be able to adjust manually such staff name position in every system instead of the whole score.
5.4. You should also be able to adjust manually staff names (not only position but content as well) in every system instead of the whole score, for, there is need to read, say, Piccolo flute in the 5th page of the score instead of Flute, or English horn instead of Oboe.
5.5. Names of instruments in orchestral scores should be preferably written as in the traditional (see 19th , or 20th century) scores, e.g. “Trumpet” in the middle of two staves whose names are 1 and 2 positioned in line with each staff. Same with Bassoons, Trombones, etc.
5.6. Fonts: I do not know why Finale’s appearance is far better than Ove’s. Could we use the same fonts eventually?

Thank you for your attention. Above enhancements will not only make my life easier, but will certainly make your program look more professional!

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group