Richard Smith wrote:
I'm sorry if it seemed so, but I did not intend to "bemoan" Finale's
"lack of consistency". I simply pointed out, without agreeing, that
Lilypond claims a more human engraved look based on slight
irregularities that are programed into the software. I don't use
Lilypond. I just happened to know of their emphasis and thought it
pertinent to the discussion.
My Sibelius comment was simply that I like the printed look I achieve
with Sibelius more than Finale's. Much of the Finale work that I see as
a performer is not very skillfully done. Clearly careful workers can
achieve much better results. Either app, in the hands of a good
engraver, can produce superior results.
[snip]
The telling point in a comparison between the two programs, though, is
when relatively new users enter the same work into either program, using
the default templates. Which produces better looking results?
We on this list often lose sight of the fact that the majority of the
users of both programs never get beyond a new-user mentality, using
whatever default templates can do with whatever default settings there
are. Most people aren't interested in poking around "under the hood."
Regarding the inconsistencies of a human-engraved piece of music, I've
never really considered them a plus, but rather have considered them
only negatives. If I can spot an inconsistency in an engraved piece of
music, that simply means that my attention has been distracted from the
music and that's a bad thing in any sort of manuscript or engraving, in
my opinion.
And I think that the programmed "human inconsistency" may be
marketing-speak for "we just can't be bothered with computations to the
highest precision possible in placing items on the screen and sending
them to the printer driver." Or "we just don't know how to make it NOT
appear to have human inconsistency." :-)
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
