David W. Fenton wrote:
[snip]
> I read his posts as an explanation of some of the things Sibelius
> does well, posted here as a way of pointing out what Finale might do
> better.
>
> The "rush to pounce" mystifies me -- it's as if people felt some kind
> of personal investment in Finale that causes them to view the
> slightest criticism of Finale as a criticism of themselves.
>
>
Since it was my post to which Richard replied with his "rush to pounce"
comment, I was just trying to dig deeper into what at first glance
appeared to be comments that Sibelius does instrument selections, patch
changes such as Arco and Pizzicato far easier than Finale does.
Upon further clarification from Richard, it came out that indeed
Sibelius does it EXACTLY like Finale does it -- with Sibelius if you
want specific sounds to respond to the "type into score" expressions,
you have to define them in a list, just as with Finale expressions. I
was merely asking how having to define them in a list was different from
having to define them in a list? And then the whole "type into score"
was very overrated, since it really doesn't make anything easier,
ultimately.
With Sibelius, once the playback has been defined by the user, to get a
"senza sordino" into the score requires 11 keystrokes. With Finale, to
achieve the same effect, again once it has been defined by the user, it
requires 2 mouse clicks and 1 key stroke, or if metatools aren't used,
then it requires a double-click, scroll, double-click, single-click.
Ultimately neither one is easier than the other, which is NOT what was
being represented initially.
A further post from Richard to me indicated that Sibelius does allow
keyboard shortcuts to be defined for the placement of expressions. That
sound just like metatools to me, although Sibelius users posting on the
Finale list have claimed that there isn't the arcane memory required to
remember all the metatool assignments possible with Finale, which they
find so confusing. So, again, people are saying that using (Sibelius)
keyboard shortcuts is easier than using (Finale) keyboard shortcuts.
I wasn't pouncing -- I was probing to find if the first-glance total
ease of Sibelius was as valid an assessment as is often put forth as a
great reason to use Sibelius. As more details are revealed, it turns
out that they are both essentially the same. The finer details of doing
anything might turn out to be different, with different terminology, but
ultimately for the user to get exactly what he/she wants, the level of
work and knowledge required is the same.
Call it pouncing if you want, I call it digging to find out the real
truth. And just as I feel it is unfair for Coda to claim that Finale is
easy to learn to use, I feel it is patently unfair for Sibelius users to
chant the company mantra that Sibelius is any easier to use.
I find Finale extremely easy to use, now that I have learned the
program. But I would never tell any non-user asking about the program
that it was easy to use at first -- I simply had to work through the
tutorials and then practice, practice, practice. It turns out that to
get the results that I would want, Sibelius is no better than Finale.
What DOES show clearly is that some people find Sibelius' method of
making the user work easier to deal with, while others find Finale's
method of making the user work. And the reverse is true, as witness the
large number of faithful, mostly satisfied Finale users.
But ultimately, we ALL have to bend to the mechanics of our chosen
notation program.
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
