The biggest difference being price. Musescore is absolutely free and it amazes me that such an impressive piece of software is given out for free. Incredible.
Very true! It’s incredible how musescore can be such a powerful yet free compositional tool! And while I don’t hold any strong opinions on the matter, it’s also fascinating to hear/read about how large musescore has become. I mean, I remember when musescore was virtually unknown, working on small things like the open Goldberg variations (does that app even still work?) and you could still download mscz files for free on musescore.com and all features were accessible. Now here they are acquiring Hal Leonard, the biggest sheet music publisher. That’s just incredible. Perhaps Musescore will follow in the steps of Avid/Sibelius/Pro Tools and develop its own DAW as well. I’d be interested to see what that’s like!
Great piece! Besides that I'm amazed how much better musescore sounds. But you have to work in musescore itself to make it sound like that, yes? I tried to transfer some of my files from Sibelius/Note performer to musescore via xml files, but that never sounded that amazing like your piece does here. Perhaps it doesn't work that way, or at least you have to do a lot of adjusting to make it sound convincing when you haven't created the original score with musescore.
Thanks! (sorry in advance, by the time I finished writing down my thoughts it got way too long!) For sure the way sounds are approached in musescore and noteperformer are different. I think the developers of the new musescore sounds were going for the film-score-style of the current orchestra sample libraries used in DAWs (BBC, Native, CineSamples, EastWest etc.). Unlike noteperformer, which is pretty flexible, the musescore sounds are pretty...concrete(?) - what I mean is like forte on brass is always movie-blasting-brassy brass - which is a problem when you're trying to copy a forte from a Mozart symphony. Woodwind legatos are meant for woodwind runs - not the rapidly-changing articulated passages of something like say Stravinsky. Strings sound beautiful...if they play whole notes. Staccatos don't even work - you need to use staccatissimo wedges, which is unrealistic performance-wise. There's also balance problems. If you mark all woodwinds as MP, you won't be able to hear the reeds - they'll need to be marked F. Harp is practically inaudible unless it's marked MF or over. PP-MP all sound like P on strings, then there's a dramatic spike to FF when you try doing a crescendo from P-MF. Violas usually don't have important lines in film scores, so if you want it to stick out in a MP texture it needs to be marked FFF. There's a whole lot more discrepancies between the written and sound output in musescore. That's why I treat it more like a DAW - use it to get the sound I want, then export to Sibelius to get the realistically notated score. I've tried exporting from Sib to Mscz too, but I found that even after tweaking it it just doesn't work well because the sounds are kind of designed to make you write in a particular style/era of orchestration. But to play devil's advocate, there's nothing really wrong with that. I found myself writing in a style I usually don't do. In sibelius I loved to write quasi-Prokofiev, and one of the first things when I got MuseScore was to import a lot of pieces I wrote in the past to see how they sounded. But since complex woodwind lines and fast slurred string passages don't work in mscz, the more pieces I tried to import the more I realized I didn't like any of them. So the best way to test out the sounds was to write something using the "limitations" or "parameters" that MuseScore sounds allowed - and that's how I ended up with...well, this piece. It's not my usual style, but it's what works well in mscz. And I think musescore is a great program for people who want to create music where the final product is the MIDI itself rather than a live performance - you don't have to worry about range limitations or following proper orchestration techniques or notation conventions - kind of like a DAW. I had this same realization when I discovered that a lot of my favorite game soundtracks (in particular nintendo games) uses the same sound bank as the default "general midi" option that exists in both sibelius and musescore - we're always looking for the most realistic sound libraries, like noteperformer, and see the basic midi sounds as being "unrealistic" or "just a mockup", but others have embraced those sounds and used it to their advantage. I know this is straying from your initial point, but I just wanted to include this remark to show that I think the best way to get the most out of both programs is to embrace their differences and adapt to them rather than trying to get them to function the same and replicating from one to another.
for a concise version: yes. you have to do a lot of adjusting and fixing, and it involves re-notating things to look the way you want it to sound rather than look the way you want actual performers to play it.
musescore is definitely more realistic but harder to use. And not because of the software itself but cause of having to manage all the issues in articulations, balance, and other bugs and glitches we have to work around because the musescore team haven’t addressed it yet.
Even though Musecore 4 used a very realistic sound library, I still didn't like MS4 very much. When I approached large orchestras, it often unbalanced the sound during playback, sometimes out of harmony. , moreover the dynamics are often very buggy, the same goes for the articulation. The techniques of the musical instruments are also not very perfect.
I agree! musescore has great sounds but it doesn’t convey well with proper notation. I’m trying to write an orchestra piece in musescore right now and it’s been a struggle. The more I write the more I realize I’m going to have to do a separate score in Sibelius because the notation required to get the “realistic” sounds in musescore is just unrealistic to a performer/conductor trying to read the score. Like the staccatos are great…only if you use staccatissimo wedges. The legatos are great…but it doesn’t distinguish slurred and tongued or detache. Harp sounds great…but only louder than MF. Half the instruments have to be set no quieter than MP for it to be heard, and violas at FFF sound quieter than cellos at P… crescendoing in brass from a quiet to loud dynamic is difficult since it triggers “brassy” brass once you pass MF. But even though I complain about a lot of issues, I’ve been trying to adapt to them and realizing that i just need to treat musescore more like a DAW than a notation program. Kinda like how a movie composer might make their tracks in a daw then export the midi and create a score version for their studio recording session. Also, I realize that musescore sounds is relatively new compared to Noteperformer (which I prefer) and I’m sure in a couple years it’ll be better! :)
It's certainly better than what it used to be! (back when you had to make 20 invisible dynamics just to simulate a crescendo. oof). I heard Dorico is the best for part extraction though, haven't tried that out yet.
guys is nobody gonna point out how good the piece itself is
The biggest difference being price. Musescore is absolutely free and it amazes me that such an impressive piece of software is given out for free. Incredible.
Very true! It’s incredible how musescore can be such a powerful yet free compositional tool! And while I don’t hold any strong opinions on the matter, it’s also fascinating to hear/read about how large musescore has become. I mean, I remember when musescore was virtually unknown, working on small things like the open Goldberg variations (does that app even still work?) and you could still download mscz files for free on musescore.com and all features were accessible. Now here they are acquiring Hal Leonard, the biggest sheet music publisher. That’s just incredible. Perhaps Musescore will follow in the steps of Avid/Sibelius/Pro Tools and develop its own DAW as well. I’d be interested to see what that’s like!
Yep. Note Performer sounds better but is not worth the cost
Great piece! Besides that I'm amazed how much better musescore sounds. But you have to work in musescore itself to make it sound like that, yes? I tried to transfer some of my files from Sibelius/Note performer to musescore via xml files, but that never sounded that amazing like your piece does here. Perhaps it doesn't work that way, or at least you have to do a lot of adjusting to make it sound convincing when you haven't created the original score with musescore.
Thanks! (sorry in advance, by the time I finished writing down my thoughts it got way too long!)
For sure the way sounds are approached in musescore and noteperformer are different. I think the developers of the new musescore sounds were going for the film-score-style of the current orchestra sample libraries used in DAWs (BBC, Native, CineSamples, EastWest etc.). Unlike noteperformer, which is pretty flexible, the musescore sounds are pretty...concrete(?) - what I mean is like forte on brass is always movie-blasting-brassy brass - which is a problem when you're trying to copy a forte from a Mozart symphony. Woodwind legatos are meant for woodwind runs - not the rapidly-changing articulated passages of something like say Stravinsky. Strings sound beautiful...if they play whole notes. Staccatos don't even work - you need to use staccatissimo wedges, which is unrealistic performance-wise.
There's also balance problems. If you mark all woodwinds as MP, you won't be able to hear the reeds - they'll need to be marked F. Harp is practically inaudible unless it's marked MF or over. PP-MP all sound like P on strings, then there's a dramatic spike to FF when you try doing a crescendo from P-MF. Violas usually don't have important lines in film scores, so if you want it to stick out in a MP texture it needs to be marked FFF.
There's a whole lot more discrepancies between the written and sound output in musescore. That's why I treat it more like a DAW - use it to get the sound I want, then export to Sibelius to get the realistically notated score. I've tried exporting from Sib to Mscz too, but I found that even after tweaking it it just doesn't work well because the sounds are kind of designed to make you write in a particular style/era of orchestration.
But to play devil's advocate, there's nothing really wrong with that. I found myself writing in a style I usually don't do. In sibelius I loved to write quasi-Prokofiev, and one of the first things when I got MuseScore was to import a lot of pieces I wrote in the past to see how they sounded. But since complex woodwind lines and fast slurred string passages don't work in mscz, the more pieces I tried to import the more I realized I didn't like any of them. So the best way to test out the sounds was to write something using the "limitations" or "parameters" that MuseScore sounds allowed - and that's how I ended up with...well, this piece. It's not my usual style, but it's what works well in mscz. And I think musescore is a great program for people who want to create music where the final product is the MIDI itself rather than a live performance - you don't have to worry about range limitations or following proper orchestration techniques or notation conventions - kind of like a DAW. I had this same realization when I discovered that a lot of my favorite game soundtracks (in particular nintendo games) uses the same sound bank as the default "general midi" option that exists in both sibelius and musescore - we're always looking for the most realistic sound libraries, like noteperformer, and see the basic midi sounds as being "unrealistic" or "just a mockup", but others have embraced those sounds and used it to their advantage.
I know this is straying from your initial point, but I just wanted to include this remark to show that I think the best way to get the most out of both programs is to embrace their differences and adapt to them rather than trying to get them to function the same and replicating from one to another.
for a concise version: yes. you have to do a lot of adjusting and fixing, and it involves re-notating things to look the way you want it to sound rather than look the way you want actual performers to play it.
@@dankim291 Hey, thanks for your extended answer. That's very enlightening and helpful.
@@dankim291Que buen comentario, técnico y objetivo 👍👍
Musescore - Sounds better and more realistic but harder to use.
Noteperformer - Doesn't sound as realistic but easier to use
musescore is definitely more realistic but harder to use. And not because of the software itself but cause of having to manage all the issues in articulations, balance, and other bugs and glitches we have to work around because the musescore team haven’t addressed it yet.
Have they addressed them in 4.43?@@dankim291
musescore actually sounds better to my ear and im a sibelius noteperformer guy
same, I think the legato stuff is well done in musescore, but runs and articulations are better in noteperformer
Even though Musecore 4 used a very realistic sound library, I still didn't like MS4 very much. When I approached large orchestras, it often unbalanced the sound during playback, sometimes out of harmony. , moreover the dynamics are often very buggy, the same goes for the articulation. The techniques of the musical instruments are also not very perfect.
I agree! musescore has great sounds but it doesn’t convey well with proper notation. I’m trying to write an orchestra piece in musescore right now and it’s been a struggle. The more I write the more I realize I’m going to have to do a separate score in Sibelius because the notation required to get the “realistic” sounds in musescore is just unrealistic to a performer/conductor trying to read the score. Like the staccatos are great…only if you use staccatissimo wedges. The legatos are great…but it doesn’t distinguish slurred and tongued or detache. Harp sounds great…but only louder than MF. Half the instruments have to be set no quieter than MP for it to be heard, and violas at FFF sound quieter than cellos at P… crescendoing in brass from a quiet to loud dynamic is difficult since it triggers “brassy” brass once you pass MF.
But even though I complain about a lot of issues, I’ve been trying to adapt to them and realizing that i just need to treat musescore more like a DAW than a notation program. Kinda like how a movie composer might make their tracks in a daw then export the midi and create a score version for their studio recording session. Also, I realize that musescore sounds is relatively new compared to Noteperformer (which I prefer) and I’m sure in a couple years it’ll be better! :)
Musescore is still the best BTW (idk why)
It's certainly better than what it used to be! (back when you had to make 20 invisible dynamics just to simulate a crescendo. oof). I heard Dorico is the best for part extraction though, haven't tried that out yet.
@@dankim291it certainly is!!