David W. Fenton wrote:
On 14 Oct 2007 at 16:28, Aaron Sherber wrote:
At 03:42 PM 10/14/2007, David W. Fenton wrote:
>The point is that Sibelius is not as versatile as Finale in terms of
>providing options for music entry. Bad-mouthing Finale doesn't change
>the fact that Sibelius is more limiting, and enforces a single way of
>working, whereas Finale offers choice.
This is also true. Although it's only relevant for those of us who
love Speedy.
But that's a huge majority of the long-term users, no? It's really a
huge stumbling block for me -- when I need to use Finale, I mostly
need to do it quickly, so I just don't have the time to learn a new
entry method that seems to me to be much less efficient.
I used to think that it was a huge majority of the long-term users, but
from various posts over the years I have been surprised at how many of
people I would have assumed used Speedy were actually using Simple
Entry. And quite a few jumped from Speedy to the newly revamped Simple
Entry tool a few versions ago.
I don't think MakeMusic would dissolve the Speedy Entry tool were it the
preferred tool of choice for a huge majority of its users, probably
taking its lead from corporate users who purchase large numbers of site
licenses, who may not be using Speedy Entry at all.
And I can well understand the time constraints concerning learning a new
tool. So it seems that moving to Sibelius isn't really an option for
you (and quite possibly for many others.) I'm not abandoning Finale,
but I am finding working in Sibelius to be much easier than I had
formerly thought it was, and the conversion to Sibelius' entry methods
happened practically overnight for me, so it might not be as difficult a
transition as you think it will be.
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
