Chuck Israels wrote:
[snip]
fluent in data entry in Sibelius, but he is copying existing
manuscripts, so the "thought process" order doesn't matter. He can
enter the duration first with no hitch in his thinking. For me, as a
composer/arranger, that doesn't work, so I don't get the conventional
wisdom that Sibleius is for composers and Finale is for copyists.
[snip]
Being fairly fluent in Sibelius now, and having used Finale
since version 3.5, I have never understood that distinction
either.
Both programs are for both types of people, with the
following qualification -- many who compose think of rhythm
first and pitch second. Many others think of pitch first
and rhythm second. There's no single method that is common
to all composers.
So for those who think rhythm first and pitch second,
Sibelius is a great composer's tool. For those who think
pitch first and rhythm second, it's not.
Personally, I'm thinking of the line I'm composing first and
have rhythm and pitch both predetermined before trying to
enter it into the computer, so I can work equally well in
either program.
As for being a program for copyists, both programs again are
excellent up to the point where one might need (or want) the
greater control Finale gives, at which point Finale is
clearly the better copyist's tool.
I think that the reason Sibelius may have developed the
reputation of being a composer's tool is that the default
page layout issues is much better in Sibelius without
futzing around with the internal workings of the program,
whereas all Finale users know that simply hitting Print and
accepting all of Finale's defaults results in less than
ideal output. So if the composer has already got the score
down on paper, Sibelius is easier for that same composer to
get printed output from.
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
