@c -*- coding: utf-8; mode: texinfo; -*-
@ignore
    Translation of GIT committish: FILL-IN-HEAD-COMMITTISH

    When revising a translation, copy the HEAD committish of the
    version that you are working on.  See TRANSLATION for details.
@end ignore



@node software 
@unnumberedsec What is wrong with music notation software

Computers have made music printing accessible to the masses, but they
tend to deliver mediocre typography.  Apparently, programmers have
been doing a shoddy job on notation programs.  To illustrate that, we
had an amateur user set a piece of music in one of the most popular
@quotedblleft{}professional@quotedblright{} notation programs sold today, Finale
2003. It was made with all of the default settings. The music is from
the Sarabande of the 2nd Cello Suite by J. S. Bach.

@emph{
(Finale is a registered trademark of MakeMusic! Inc.)
}

@divClass{float-center}
@sourceimage{finale-sarabande-full,,,.png}
@divEnd

This example far surpasses the previous one when it comes to
formatting errors: there are serious errors in literally
@emph{every} measure. The errors come in all sizes: a big one is the
oddly s p a c e d @  o u t last line. A smaller one is the flat in
measure 13, which is covered by the note preceding it. Here is a
magnification of that measure:

@divClass{float-center}
@sourceimage{finale-flat-detail,,,.png}
@divEnd

The errors go down to the teensy details: below is a blowup of the
beam in that measure. Of course, in proper typography the beam should
not stick out to the right of the stem, and the ribbles provide a
telling glimpse into Coda Music Technology programmers' aptness (or
lack thereof) with the underlying PostScript technology.

@divClass{float-center}
@sourceimage{finale-beam-detail,,,.png}
@divEnd

Now, one could refute that Finale has a graphical interface, and it
lets you easily move about elements to correct errors, or use plug-ins
to do so.  This is certainly true: in fact, good professional
engravers that use Finale typically spend the majority of their time
correcting all the errors that Finale routinely makes.  But do you
want to spend your time on correcting all glaring errors?  For the
spaced out line, it is doable, but imagine that you have to correct
each and every beam that sticks out of the stems....  by hand?

There is a less obvious reason why correcting things by hand is a bad
idea. Consider again measure 13 reproduced above.  The misplaced flat
is pretty obvious, but did you notice that repeat bar? Its lines are
too far apart. Did you notice that the eighth rest is too far down?
Did it occur to you that the stem of the last eighth note is too long?

@divClass{float-center}
@sourceimage{finale-flat-correct,,,.png}
@divEnd

Unless you are an expert, typographical errors will irk you without
being obvious. Many of them will go uncorrected and will still be in the
final print.

This example may seem contrived, but in fact, it's not.  All
major producers of notation software claim to follow engraving
standards, but we have not seen any that gets the basics right; all of
them make systematic mistakes.  If you want to assess the output of your
favorite program, then buy a decent hand-made score from a respectable
publisher, and try to reproduce one page of it. Then compare them:

@itemize
@item

How does the page layout compare? Typically, computer scores are more
widely spaced so they take up more pages, meaning more annoying page
turns.


@item

How does the spacing compare?  Is it as lively and flowing as the
hand-made score? If in doubt, try measuring both with a ruler.


@item

Put both on a music stand, 1 meter away; that is not uncommon when
performing. Can you read both pages? Almost all computer scores have
an anemic look: they use lines which are too thin, and symbols which
are too light. That makes them hard to read from a distance. If in
doubt, measure the difference with a magnifying glass.


@end itemize

@divClass{float-right}
Next: @ref{problem-statement,How not to design software},
or: modeling music notation.
@divEnd
