MusicXML converter: new project

Discussion of converting to Sibelius from Finale.
jsmaster
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:37 am

Post by jsmaster » Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:44 am

Well, I think this is getting pretty ridiculous. Sibelius should be able to convert to MusicXML without having to pay $200 for a plugin. I have some experience in coding, so I thought that I should start a project to create a free plugin for Sibelius to convert to MusicXML. I know the MusicXML file format is open, and learning the Manuscript language shouldn't be too difficult. Anyways, if anyone is interested in helping, please respond. I started a Google Code page at http://code.google.com/p/sibexport/ for the project, so it is open source, and anyone can contribute. Also, I know this is the "Converting from Finale" forum, but I felt this is the best place to put it.

EDIT: Added Google Code link


jsmaster
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:37 am

Post by jsmaster » Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:16 pm

Yes, I did see that. Basically, I think the best way to go about it would be to use MuseScore's MusicXML exporter as a base, and use it to help write the plugin. I realize the Dolet is 20,000 lines of Manuscript, and I would definitely not reach that quality of work, at least for a while, but I still would like to give people an easy, free alternative to Dolet. From what I see, sib2ly won't help until Lilypond get's a MusicXML exporter, so that wouldn't do any good for right now.

musicxml
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 6:50 pm

Post by musicxml » Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:59 am

Hi Aaron,

Your Google Code page starts with "Recordare is asking you to pay $195 for a plugin that lets you export to MusicXML in Sibelius."

Please be aware that Recordare is also the company that created the MusicXML format for use by any notation software developer. Without MusicXML, musicians would still be stuck with MIDI to transfer files between programs. Recordare's ability to continue to develop and improve the MusicXML format and software comes in large part from software sales.

Naturally it would be best if Sibelius included MusicXML export directly, like Finale does. Do let Sibelius know that you would like to see this in the future. But could you please not compete with Recordare by building your own MusicXML export plug-in?

A professional user will find that Dolet 5 for Sibelius pays for itself very quickly in the huge amount of time it saves. For less demanding use, the Dolet 1 for Sibelius plug-in is only $99 and still provides much better transfers than MIDI files.

There are still so many possibilities to contribute to the MusicXML software community by writing something that nobody has done before. A MusicXML exporter for LilyPond is an obvious example, but there are lots more possibilities. An added benefit in doing a new program is being able to use your favorite programming language and tools rather than being restricted to ManuScript.

Best regards,

Michael Good
Recordare LLC

jsmaster
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:37 am

Post by jsmaster » Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:48 pm

I've heard that argument already. Being a big open source advocate, I don't see why the MusicXML format can't just be community developed. $195 is a bit much to ask of the common person who only composes a few pieces, and would only use Dolet a few times. And no, Dolet 1 does not count; it's old, and still is $99.95. Maybe if the price were lower, things would be different, but with such a high price, I don't see any alternative than to develop my own program. An exporter like Dolet should be in the $30 price range, at least that's how I see it. Exporters really are not too complicated, and fairly easy to develop, and to ask so much money for one is just ridiculous. Sorry, but I'm not going to be convinced not to develop this program.

musicxml
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 6:50 pm

Post by musicxml » Wed Dec 08, 2010 8:10 pm

If you are indeed a big open source advocate, why would want to compete with the developers of the only open format for music notation? MusicXML has been essential for the development of open source music notation programs like MuseScore.

Our MusicXML software development relies on income to fund this work. If you just want to translate a file or two, you can use our file translation service, which is more in your price range.

In addition, providing a free alternative provides Sibelius with less incentive to include MusicXML export in their own product - which is what I think everyone really wants.

Building a simple exporter is indeed not too complicated. Building something that is high quality for use by professional musicians is an entirely different matter.

You can do what you like, of course - nobody has to ask permission to use the MusicXML format. But life is short and copying other people's software seems not the best way to spend it.

jsmaster
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:37 am

Post by jsmaster » Fri Dec 10, 2010 3:55 am

musicxml wrote:If you are indeed a big open source advocate, why would want to compete with the developers of the only open format for music notation? MusicXML has been essential for the development of open source music notation programs like MuseScore.
That just doesn't seem right to me. To pay for closed source software so that developers can be paid to write open source software? Open source software is something that should be a community-driven thing. Anyone can contribute to the project, so the result is a product of all the ideas of the community.
musicxml wrote:Our MusicXML software development relies on income to fund this work. If you just want to translate a file or two, you can use our file translation service, which is more in your price range.
Even the file translation service is pretty high-priced. At $20 plus $2 per page, the price can jack up quite quickly (just 10 pages and the price doubles), and using this service, even only two or three times, could end up surpassing the cost of Dolet 5 to begin with.
musicxml wrote:In addition, providing a free alternative provides Sibelius with less incentive to include MusicXML export in their own product - which is what I think everyone really wants.
First of all, you are completely conflicting your main argument. If Sibelius included MusicXML export, you would again be stuck without all that income from Dolet 5. If I created the free plugin, you would be at a better advantage because you would have the higher-quality product, that most professionals (which I think makes up most of your market) would probably prefer over the free product.

Also, I have read from numerous places that including such an exporter is not too high on the priority list at Sibelius, and I am fairly confident that it won't be included in the next big release. If I created the plugin, releasing it would surely spark some interest in others who can code in Manuscript, and it would cause more contributions to the project, ultimately ending in a better product that may be good enough to include with Sibelius.
musicxml wrote:Building a simple exporter is indeed not too complicated. Building something that is high quality for use by professional musicians is an entirely different matter.
Not really. More time-consuming, yes. But it's really not that complicated to add in all the checks and fallbacks to make the program reliable and not buggy. And again, if you think it would be so difficult to create a decent plugin, why are you so worried?
musicxml wrote:You can do what you like, of course - nobody has to ask permission to use the MusicXML format. But life is short and copying other people's software seems not the best way to spend it.
Haha really? I suppose life is also too short to create OpenOffice.org, or Chromium, or countless other projects, because they've already been done before. I don't mean to bash you, but in my eyes, music is something that is shared. I feel that it is morally wrong for you to capitalize on this aspect of sharing, and charge people money for it. Obviously, I don't need your permission to do this, I just though I should at least explain my reasoning.

musicxml
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 6:50 pm

Post by musicxml » Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:24 am

I'm not worried, I was just trying to guide your efforts to something more creative. There's so much software that hasn't been written yet.

Yes, I do think life is too short to write copycat software, unless you're just getting started with programming. Most successful open source projects offer some distinguishing feature (like Linux support) beyond being free. Dolet 5 for Sibelius maxes out what can be done with Sibelius 6.2 and MusicXML 2.0, so there's no similar room for innovation or quality improvements here.

To clarify, file translation is $2/page with a $20 minimum, so a 10-page file is $20. Obviously with frequent use it's more cost-effective to purchase the plug-in, but your argument was about using it only a few times.

muzzician
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 8:24 am

Post by muzzician » Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:14 am

jsmaster wrote:Well, I think this is getting pretty ridiculous. Sibelius should be able to convert to MusicXML without having to pay $200 for a plugin.
Absolutely! I'm C++ programmer and musician, did some guitar plug-ins in Manuscript and Finale plug-ins as well.

I'd treat Recordare's endeavors simply on "take or leave" basis without any emotions, Aaron. It has its particular, shall I say, pioneering attitude but anyone has right to do it.

I'd go a file converter way rather by obtaining sib file format specification, but this is personal preference.

On the other front: one can use Optical recognition software (after PDF export/virtual print) and get XML. Notable examples are SharpEye, Neuratron, Capella Scan.
Then money spent will work also for other purpose than getting XML.
Good luck on the scene!

Post Reply