Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner iPad Pro & Forscore - your experience/recommendations?

Thanks for all the great feedback, seems like it's definitely worth the investment. Thanks again.

Well, this is one I didn't know about. The bite switch page turner!

(For those with good teeth. )

[video:youtube]PU0deGXTJpM[/video]

I searched for this info but can't seem to find it.

I know that the size of the iPad Pro is 12.9". However, part of that is the bevel. What's the actual dimension of the area available to display music? My reason for wanting to upgrade is that the music is too small to see on my 9.7" iPad. But (short of a trip to the faraway Apple Store), I'm wondering what the usable screen size is and how that compares with a standard size sheet of music.

My purchased music is on 9" x 12" sheets. Has this presented an issue for others when scanning, since scanners typically scan for 8.5" x 11" source docs? I really do need to maximize the size of the notes.

Also, for those of you who have a lot of music scanned, have you found storage to be an issue? I usually buy 'midrange' models, but I'm wondering if I need the model with the most storage.

Thank you so much for helping me spend my money, ha ha!

It's about 7 5/8" x 10 1/4" or thereabouts. With ForScore it's easy to crop out the margins so the music is close enough to the same size.
I've scanned all sorts of paper sizes for use on my iPad and haven't had any issues (although your scanner obviously needs to accommodate the larger sizes).

I hear you. 9x12 is an old standard, perfect for piano scores. The computing world doesn't seem to like 9x12.

Another wrinkle: Apple has a Developers Conference next week during which new products may be announced. There is talk of a new 10.5" inch iPad which is really the same as the 9.7" with expanded display into the black glass near the bezel.

ForeScore allows resizing pages to get rid of margins on scanned scores thereby enlarging the music.

Thanks! That is very helpful.

It sounds like it is probably 'close enough' to work. My scanner accommodates 8.5 x 14, but given a .5" margin on most music, I can probably work with that.

I will watch for the announcement of new models. Although I don't need all the fancy new features, if I am buying, I may as well get the 'current' model. My present iPad is an iPad 3 and quite old, so due for replacement.

I think thatan additional benefit of going electronic will be that it will be that it will be easier to keep up pieces I have studied I the past. Presently I would need to dig through piles of paper and books to refresh my memory on older pieces, and so I am rather inconsistent with that. I won't miss the piles of stuff around my piano.

Not sure if it has been mentioned yet - https://www.theverge.com/circuitbre...eet-music-reader-shipping-september-1600 . It's a different price point certainly, but if you are considering spending $1000 for an ipad + foot pedal, it is probably worth bringing up.

FWIW - I've used the big ipad pro and a foot pedal for about a year for reading chamber music - mostly trying to minimize the impact of the many page turns by using the foot pedal. In all honesty, I vastly prefer physical books with the exception of page turns assisted by the foot pedal. The page size is close enough to the original after cropping that print size is a non issue. My main reasons for preferring a physical book are:
- The glare/screen from the ipad is not nearly as easy on my eyes as a regular book. I think this would only really be solved by a backlit eink solution (a paperwhite kindle). The link above mentions the $1600 pdf reader has eink, but says nothing about being backlit
- It takes time to transfer scores and crop the pages for forscore - compared to the hundreds of books I already own and can just pick up off a shelf. A lot of the sheet music I own would require scanning as it isn't on IMSLP or available digitally
- I like being able to view two pages at once. This is particularly useful when a repeat goes back from the right page the left page - in the ipad this requires a few additional page turns
- I've never completely managed to adjust to turning pages with my foot. I've tried a few different foot pedals, and I usually accidentally turn two pages instead of one, about once per 30 minutes or so. Meaning, if I'm performing I usually do this a few times per performance
- I find it easier/faster to write/erase comments in books than the ipad

I like the looks of that - just might have to try it.
I tried using two iPad pros side-by-side, but it didn't work that well for me. Plus, I've never been comfortable with the foot pedal - I prefer to just touch the screen.
Big question for me is how good the stylus is. I love the apple pencil.

I just tried performing Beethoven op 2 no 3 2 pages at once (Forscore, Ipad Pro horizontal, no foot pedal.) Worked fine until the repeat in the 3rd movement: mixed up the direction of "finger sweeps". Swiping the screen is WAY faster than a paper page turn. The ideal would be an 18 inch screen, 2-page (or 2 Ipad Pros $$ !!) Screen reflection from a window in the room was distracting (fix with a satin screen protector?) Doesn't help that I can't sightread.

I would like to share my experience in tagging my sheet music in forScore.

I appreciate and like very much that it's possible to rename tags' fields. I found my perfect solution:

• Title

• Performer (was Composer)¹

• Composer (was Genre)

• Tags (here I will put Genre, mood, event like Wedding, Christmas etc.)

• Source (was Labels). Will be very useful to choose/play/search pieces by books, websites where the pieces were bought etc.

• Difficulty (was Rating) – I need more accurate evaluation system for difficulty than 3 circles. So I choose 5-star system instead of 3 circles.

• Rating (was Difficulty). 3 circle system is completely enough for me to mark how I like the piece. Pieces which would have less than 1 circle (= 1 or 2 stars in 5-star system) just will never appear in my forScore Library. But even if they would, I just would leave them without Rating.

• Time

• Tonality (was Key)

¹ Why I chose Performer instead of Composer? Some examples. For most people names like Benny Andersson and Björn Ulvaeus don't say much. The same with Rudolf Schenker. First two are founders and composers in ABBA. The second is founder and composer in "Scorpions". Maybe Robert Kelly will say something? Not for me. But he composed the famous song "You are Not Alone" for Michael Jackson. And it's all like that in pop/rock etc. music, where composers' name in most cases don't say anything for most people, but performer says everything. People ask to play something from Céline Dion, not the composers, who wrote songs for her. Bob Thiele and George David Weiss wrote "What a Wonderful World" – the song that Louis Armstrong sang. Paul de Senneville composed "Ballade pour Adeline" which I know from childhood thanks to Richard Clayderman. And so on. That's why I much prefer to see in the lists and in the top central panel Performer instead of Composer next to title. Only this second field is always shown next to titles in the various Library lists and in the main top panel, no matter how you name it. That's why I renamed this particular field from "Composer" to "Performer" instead of renaming some other fields (for instance "Genre" to "Performer" etc.). And for classic music I just put composer's name in both fields: Performer and Composer.

So, this adapted tagging system works perfectly for me. Sure, it won't for everyone, that's why I wrote from start that I appreciate that it's possible to rename tags' fields. But maybe for someone some moments will be usefull.

Interesting! Thank you for sharing.

I also had to come up with a way to use the tagging system in a way that works for me as a ballet accompanist. Obviously, I use composer as composer, but I use "tags" for the meter of the piece, and "labels" for particular movements that it works well for. Sometimes I just want to see a list of pieces that work for "double frappé" or "piqué turns", or sometimes I just want to see all my pieces in 6/8. Sometimes I want to play something and I know, say, that Rebikov wrote it so I want to see everything Rebikov. After I use something that worked particularly well, I try to remember to throw in another label for that piece so it comes up when I look for pieces for a particular movement. I also try to make notations for different teachers that contain pieces they've liked well.

I don't have more than 30 seconds or so to get to the page. I have to listen to the movement combination and visualize it, think about what would work, decide on something, and get it open on the music desk, all before the teacher stops talking. So I appreciate easy ways to drill down to the right piece quickly. I also use the setlist function to pre-select a set of pieces for my regular classes (levels, or variations, or adult advanced) that I know I can get to very quickly, even if I deviate from the list throughout the class.

All of this being said, I still use my printed music most of the time, actually, because I just feel like I know where it is more reliably, but I'm trying to transition to the iPad. The other accompanist and I have a five foot high set of music shelves that sit right next to the piano and we have it organized (more or less) and we know where everything is. Thousands of pages of music. But if you know your books well, you can get where you need to be quickly. A hand shoots out and finds the right book, and bam, you're ready to go. I think the iPad is a better OVERALL solution, I just hate that I can't see two pages at a time. It makes me nervous. I also just LIKE a real book. I may actually buy a second iPad pro to get me two pages up at a time. I'm just afraid that I'm going to spend another $800 to buy a SECOND iPad I don't use as much as I should.

Do you use and iPad Pro, or just a regular iPad? I am looking into getting one for my music as well. I am just not sure which I should choose-and why?

The large 12.9-inch format is only available in the "Pro" model. And even having that size with forScore, I wish it could be a little bigger.

I've used the 12.9" iPad Pro with forScore & the Apple Pencil for about 2 years now. I have also explored various aspects of page turner pedals. I would never go back to paper scores. ForScore works great-- you can't go much wrong by using it. However I think the other elements of this system are more important to comment on.

The Apple Pencil needs to be recognized as enabling distinctly faster learning of a new piece. It is capable of writing smaller than you can read (you'll need to zoom in to do this), so you can easily edit a score or clean it up, or add fingering, or add timing 'words', or add clarifying colors. For example, I use Sharpie Red color for most fingerlings-- it's easy to read, to delete or to change, but you would never do this on a paper score. So you end up with a thoroughly fingered, easily read score. Sometimes you might have a grace note passage that a clueless editor has made vanishingly small. To finger it more clearly, for each group of 4 notes I might make the first finger in rose-pink color and the other 3 notes in red. Another way I use color is to clarify whether a phrase slur marking is actually a tie or a phrase (by writing over the end of the slur mark in green (= Go, for a phrase), or red (= Stop) for a tie).

I've become an avid supporter of page turner pedals, but if you don't use them correctly, you probably won't like them. You must have a strategy for doing "no-look" page turning-- you can't plan on looking down to your foot to align it with the page turn pedal (there won't be time if the music is fast and complex near the page turn). What people often start out doing is to align their left foot above the page turn pedal, and to briefly come down on the pedal for a page turn. The problem with this is that it is tiring to hold your foot in the air for most of the time. Instead, the rest position of the left foot should be down, with gravity helping your foot keep the page turner pedal in the down position. To do a page turn, you briefly raise your foot and then come back down. In the down position it is easy for your foot to feel the pedal, so it is easy to stay aligned with the pedal thus enabling no-look page turning. All this only works when your pedal or software is set for no key repeat, then there will be only one page turn signal sent when the pedal is held down (so there will be no multiple page turns accidentally generated). ForScore does not control key repeat-- your pedal needs to deal with this. I use the Airturn BT-106 transceiver with the ATFS-2 pedal (which I prefer over the PED transceiver+pedal). The BT-106 is a little awkward to turn off, but I don't know of or haven't tried an alternative. While you are getting used to using the page turn pedal, I suggest being shoeless so your foot is more aware of the pedal position.

Lastly, the page turner pedal is likely to be used on an uncarpeted floor (like hardwood). To keep it from slipping around, put it on a silicone baking sheet (e.g., about 8" x 11").

Not directly relevant - but has anyone seen this item ?

https://www.gvido.tokyo/


Ridiculously expensive, of course....

But e-ink (like Kindle is not a bad idea for sheet music)

Wow. the GVIDO is really expensive! I wonder if two iPads would work side by side, talking to each other?

Yes, they would:
https://forscore.co/10-2-dual-page-mode/

As for GVIDO, for me it has serious drawback: no backlight.

Thanks for the useful information!

I've tried the power-button method described in the manual, and invariably end up losing the pairing - a real nuisance to have to re-set. The best way is to let it turn itself off: switch off the iPad, and within 3 minutes the BT-106 will automatically shut down.

The extra bonus with this method is that you also get a warning when it needs recharging. During that 3 minutes, the BT-106's LED blinks orange and green (ending in 3 red blinks as it switches off). If you see only orange blinks, the battery is low.

I have been using forScore for around 2 years, first with a 9.7 inch iPad and now with a 12.9 inch iPad Pro with an Apple Pencil. I am very happy with the setup now with the big screen. The major limitation I found was the inability to have multiple and separate layers of annotations on the same score (e.g. fingering, harmonic analysis, dynamics and so on). The app had the "snapshot" feature but it was far from being an ideal solution. The good news is that the latest version of forScore now supports multiple layers that can be turned on and off independently. The developers of the tool are also very open to comments and to requests for new features.

It took me a while to move away from paper and to start using regularly forScore. The main benefits I find are about the organization and management of the score collection and score annotation (even more now with annotation layering). IMO, these two features alone make it a better alternative than paper-based scores. I am aware there will be use cases out there where an app + tablet will not be a good setup, including use cases that require page turning. But I think that for amateurs who rely on annotations during practice and learning, this is a very valuable tool.