Disklavier

Hi Tom

May I just say that Sibelius 2.1 and Photoscore Pro 2.1 are very very 
expensive around £600 in the UK.
For that money I could hire a proffesional pianist to play them for 
me, without the need to spend hours making it sound good. 

Midi Magic


--- In disklavier@yahoogroups.com, Tom Wheeler <tnwheeler@n...> wrote:
> For what it's worth, I would like to chime in and add my two cents 
about 
> scanning in music.
> 
> Let me begin by saying that I am an adult trying to learn to play 
my 
> DC3A disklavier.  After spending a year with Voyetra's "Teach Me 
Piano" 
> software which I enjoyed very much and felt was an excellent way to 
> begin to learn to play the piano (for an adult), I began taking one 
hour 
> per week piano lessons slightly over one year ago.  The core of my 
> instruction has been the Suzuki Piano Method and I am now on the 
3rd 
> selection in book 4 of this method for those familiar with the 
method. 
>  In addition my instructor always assigns me classical pieces from 
> several other books including the Hanon and Czerny technical 
materials. 
>  I would thus classify myself as a very inexperienced student 
attempting 
> to learn the piano.
> 
> I began scanning in sheet music about two years ago using Smart 
Score 
> and Finale.  Smart Score V. 1.3 (which I began with) did a very 
poor job 
> in terms of scanning accuracy although this improved somewhat when 
I 
> purchased a newer Epson flatbed scanner.  I can definitely state 
that 
> the quality of the scanner plays an important role in scanning 
music in 
> terms of the accuracy of the results.  Another important issue is 
the 
> interface between the scanning program and the notation program.  
It is 
> always necessary to correct errors, add dynamics, musical 
expressions, 
> text, etc. in the notation program.  Finale and Smart Score work 
> together, but in my opinion not very well.  It is necessary to save 
a 
> Smart Score music scan as a .fin file which must then be imported 
into 
> Finale.  The importation into Finale introduces errors that were 
not 
> present in the scan requiring further correction.  Furthermore, in 
my 
> opinion, Finale has a difficult learning curve (I have been using 
it 
> steadily for 2 years and I still find myself referring constantly 
to the 
> manual).  While Smart Score has improved significantly with Version 
2.1 
> (currently latest version), it still has problems including the 
fact 
> that my computer (running Windows 2000 Pro on a 1.8 GHZ Pentium 4 
with 1 
> GB of memory) crashes after every single time that I use Smart 
Score. 
>  (No other software that I have produces these crashes but Smart 
Score.)  
> 
> Recently (about two months ago) I purchased Sibelius 2.1 and its 
> associated scanning program (Photoscore Pro).  These two programs 
are 
> tightly integrated although Photoscore is more limited in its 
> recognition of musical symbols than Smart Score.  Both Sibelius 2.1 
and 
> Photoscore Pro 2.1 are very very stable.  I have never experienced 
a 
> crash with either program even when running other programs and 
using 
> them for hours.  Photoscore's note accuracy in music scanning is 
> excellent with my Epson flatbed scanner.  With all of that said, to 
get 
> a piece to play with correct interpretations of the dynamics and 
other 
> expressions in the score requires extensive editing in Sibelius. 
>  Fortunately Sibelius is much more intuitive to use than Finale, 
and in 
> only 2 months of working with it I feel far more competent to edit 
> notation in Sibelius than in Finale.  Further, Sibelius has some 
very 
> interesting artificial intelligence algorithms which can, to some 
> extent, interpret correct musical phrasing and apply rubato in 
> controlled amounts to the midi playback of the piece.  I find that 
the 
> playback of Sibelius files on my computer using an Creative Live 
> Platinum sound card is very good, and the playback of dynamics and 
> pedaling on my Yamaha disklavier DC3A is also very good.  
> 
> No one should believe that music scanning can produce a file that 
plays 
> back with all of the expressional nuances that an excellent pianist 
can 
> incorporate into a piece.  We are years away from that point, and 
in 
> fact, I would seriously doubt that computers will every seriously 
> challenge a good pianist in terms of playback.  With that said, I 
do 
> find the playback of the music that I have scanned in using 
Photoscore 
> and edited in Sibelius and Finale to be musically satisfying.  That 
> statement may reveal more about my lack of musical sophistication 
than 
> anything else, but I have also had these files played back for 
others 
> (including pianists) who are quite amazed and pleased with the 
quality 
> of the playback.  
> 
> The bottom line is that scanning in of  polyphonic music (which 
nearly 
> all piano music is) is not a trivial or inexpensive process. It 
requires 
> a great deal of patience to learn these programs, understand what 
they 
> can and cannot do, and a willingness to spend many hours to build 
the 
> kind of playback that will satisfy most,  but not the most 
> discriminating listeners. However, it can be done, and the results 
of 
> music scanning have been most helpful to me in learning new pieces, 
and 
> in listening to a wide assortment of music on the web for Finale 
and 
> Sibelius.  
> 
> Tom