Talk:List of scorewriters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I have merged the Current and Obsolete sections, since the distinction is hard to make - many of the Current scorewriters are at least obsolescent, not being actively marketed and probably hardly being sold; and many more must be obsolete by now. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that the heading distinction between free and paid-for software is that useful, apparently (judging from edits to other articles) being an attempt to promote freeware such as Lilypond. Possibly the Windows and Mac headings should be merged, since some of the programs are for both, resulting in duplication; or maybe the separation is useful enough to keep. But both of these distinctions can be made in the table anyway. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catwalk[edit]

There used to be a program called Catwalk in my 3.11 and 95 days. It had some really brilliant features (for the time) such as you could have your music modified "in the style of" some famous composer, but I do not recall enough so as to add it to the main list. yamaplos 03:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Musescore user

Are you sure you don't mean Cakewalk? (Though that's a sequencer, not a scorewriter.) 93.96.236.8 (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heading names for sections[edit]

Changing the section headings from "Free" and "Paid-for" to "Free and open source" and "Proprietary" changes the meaning of the headings. The new names did not reflect the actually content of those sections so I reverted the change for the sake of accuracy. If the consensus is that we should to reorganize the list of scorewriters into open source versus proprietary then it would be appropriate to change the headings, but I think that the organization question would need to be addressed first.--dbolton (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the section heading to be clearer so we should for a consensus as to what the new heading should be. --Koolabsol (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there no ABC Notation apps listed in the free-software section, and why is the site of the most popular ABC engraver, abcm2ps, on an auto-revert bot's blacklist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.150.97 (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fortenotation.com[edit]

Fortenotation.com produces software in a variety of versions, including a free one. My girlfriend is a music teacher, she uses it. I'm not sure if it is notable enough to be added to the list. Roger (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

QuickScore Elite[edit]

Would it be possible to see QuickScore Elite (www.sionsoft.com) added to this list? I don't think I should do this myself, as I have a vested interest. Cris Sion (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Music Write[edit]

Music Write is obsolete and is no longer sold. It was a licensed version of QuickScore Elite sold by Voyetra Turtle Beach from 1999 until 2009. (http://www.turtlebeach.com/support/entry/830517139/) Cris Sion (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Using ABC notation"[edit]

Is it necessary to say "using ABC notation" in the list entry for every piece of software that is capable of loading or saving this file format? Other, much more popular, formats (such as MIDI) are not emphasized in the same way; and file formats at all probably should not be emphasized. An article about image editing software, for instance, would not go out of its way to say "using JPG format" for every piece of software that is capable of doing so. The way the article is currently written, it comes across as advertisement or "undue weight" - especially because nearly all the "ABC Notation" comments were added in a single edit by one IP address all of whose edits have been related to "ABC Notation." 130.179.29.61 (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_scorewriters&oldid=1203684529"