At 06:40 AM 7/19/2007 -0400, dhbailey wrote: >I'm sorry people are taking this so seriously as an example that >Sibelius just isn't as capable as Finale because the person who made the >Sibelius "it can be done" example couldn't afford to lose a half-day's >work in the process. Especially comparing that to Dennis' effort, which >has flaws of its own, where he is getting paid to produce that output, >so any time he spent on it was time he is being paid for.
I agree with David. In response to a request by a composer considering switching to Sibelius, I presented a work-in-progress Finale document and wrote essentially, "From the demos I've tried, I don't think Sibelius can do this." A few hours later a Sibelius document was produced with precisely those difficult features replicated. This was not some sort of engraving challenge -- it wasn't even a challenge, just my incorrect opinion being speedily corrected. So it ends up being a lesson to me, but more important, I hope it's a lesson to the Makemusic team that their advantages are slipping one by one. Sibelius handles contemporary notation, a realm where Finale ruled for more than a decade after Score faded. That (non-)challenge was too easy, then. :) Here's something harder, mentioned a week or so ago. If any of you can do June's "Lunar Cascade" in a GUI-based engraving (not graphics) program, I'll hand over the 50 bucks that I got for this commission: <http://maltedmedia.com/people/bathory/music/waam/lunar-cascade-june.pdf> The original image is here: <http://maltedmedia.com/people/bathory/music/waam/lunar-cascade-rose.tif> Dennis _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
