A USER OF NOTEPROCESSOR NOTATION PROGRAM - FROM THE 1990s

In the early '90s I bought thoughtprocessor's notation program "noteprocessor," among other reasons, because it was the cheapest (U$S 200), together with (for a further 50 bucks) Outline Option, a kind of skeleton version of noteprocessor, which Ive never found of the slightest use. Fifty bucks down the drain. (I made up my own skeleton version, which worked a good deal better.) In the intervening years the program has received rather unfavourable reviews, e.g. in Keyboard magazine and the outfit has, perhaps not without ample justification, gone out of business.

   I recently browsed in the web and read that Steven Dydo, the author of the program, (whom I remember in my prayers, frequently), and who had mysteriously decamped when I tried to contact the outfit to clear up queries (having prepared a lengthy list of comments, which Ive unfortunately since deleted), has been snapped up by Voyetra (very wise), and is working on an adaptation or update of noteprocessor within their environmental framework, as I understand it. All is well that ends well, so may it thrive.

   Ive had my leg pulled by a (knowledgable) friend about my use of NP. Nevertheless, on having a look at other programs, e.g. Finale, Sibelius, and some of the less sophisticated ones, I have my reserves. (Ive done a bit of professional manuscript autographing, partially using now outmoded Notaset— same principle as Letraset. v. "Alacita," Ed. Peters, London.) The fact is Ive used NP since around '93, and continue doing so, fully aware of its abundant shortcomings, but also its fortes. Id like to go into both.

   In contrast with other notation programs, NP uses a code, called DARMS. It's a simple code that quite efficiently translates into ordinary text the majority of notational requirements one is likely to come across. It isnt perfect, and I can think of improvements, as well as the possibility of other codes (e.g. something based on the SOLFA system, somewhat employed in choral and vocal scores), and making them interconvertible. I suggested this to Dydo. Still, it's handy to input notation as text, rather than pure images. Of course, most notation programs can work on the basis of MIDI files— but how on earth can you modify anything in them unless you feed into the computer once again from an electronic keyboard, or have some other notation-substitute as, say, that of Wincake? Finally, it means... work. All in all, it would seem theres no viable shortcut, so DARMS ends up useful because it's simple text, just as the other similar suggested text-based input systems would be.

   Noteprocessor, in its 1990 version, can only be described as infuriating and laborious. For instance, in the Display feature (that is, the more or less wysiwyg page), you have no ready-made leger lines, the usefulness of which no musician will fail to acknowledge. Here you have to draw them. I pointed this out to Dydo in a letter, and he answered, "It's impossible to think of everything." True, yet one must try, because not to have ready-made inputtable leger-lines is a serious flaw— and only one of many. In fact they should pop up on their own when inserting a notehead, as in most programs, and be deletable, should you want a disembodied notehead floating somewhere. (When input from DARMS or MIDI, leger lines are drawn automatically. Otherwise the program would be practically unusable.) Similarly, deletable stems should automatically accompany input noteheads, should you so determine (which you normally would.) Ahh! I could mention a thousand details, e.g. correcting accidentals in subsequent bars (the very next, or wherever the note reappears, as in Boosey & Hawkes pocket scores; having up or down-stems on middle notes or chords according to the direction of the following or precedent stem (which, to my mind, look far better), or determining unconditional up-stems for neutral groups; correcting double accidentals with a natural-plus-single accidental or just the single accidental; and so on. The options should exist. Otherwise it has to be done the slow, laborious way, liable to plentiful human error or oversight— and this usually happens.

   And, sure enough, you can move, delete, etc., provided you are ready to invest a phenomenal amount of time and effort. One weak point I remember reading about was the lack of an Undo option. This is so basic that it hardly needs mentioning.

   The program doesnt do many of the things it purports to in the manual. It also has, in the Display feature, a beep-beep signal (+plus a pop-up Uh-Oh!) which makes you feel like strangling your computer. This is fine for computer games, I imagine, but out of place in a serious program. Look, I could go on, but I think Dydo has got a good amount of feedback, not to say flak, from the specialist magazines, and so has a fair idea of where he's tripped up. Needless to say, if he's used the program himself (which I sometimes wonder about), he cant have failed to realize. The management of type fonts is also deficient (I want the types there, and not have to undergo a course in programming to understand how to get something more than Garamond 11pt as my only choice, apart from one selectable insitting typeface in my Laserjet 4 printer, or have to depend on PostScript, which I havent got, so I dont even know if it works as it's claimed to. Anyhow, these other fonts not only dont work when converting to tif, but actually make the converter crash. Sometimes... when in the mood. Why? I wanna weep. Why cant I have variety in fonts?)

   Yet fair is fair, and one must also mention redeeming features. The notation, based on the unsurpassable German autograph styles of the 19th century, is superior to any other Ive seen. The printouts are superb and to a great extent justify all previous bitterness. The .PRN to .TIF converter, the only one available, is fairly reliable (except when it balks and doesnt say why), but one or two extra options could be useful. TIF is heavy, and takes long to convert (on ancient computers like 286s, such as Ive used exclusively until recently. On more sophisticated ones this conversion is done in a flash.) Maybe something a little lighter— as well— might not be out of place: .GIF?

   And 300 dpi: Not bad, not bad... but 600 might be even better— as an insitting option, lets call it: that is, without recourse to fancy, pricy printing devices, or PostScript and the like. For instance my printer, a good but not specially super-duper sophisticated one, does support 600 dpi. Also bear in mind a few of us users are not multinational companies. But then, arent most multinationals more interested in cocaine or pharmaceuticals than in music? So why worry?

   Why not invest that missing hap'orth o' tar and make the vessel really seaworthy? NP, a most intelligently conceived program but, alas, beset by numerous shortcomings (one gets the impression it was a one-man programming job) shouldnt disappear as an independent program, but it certainly needs work done on it.

contact: Alasdair at jpcoro@gmail.com

Translations from: English - French - German - Spanish

to Spanish or English

Moderate rates

Contact: juan.port@gmail.com