Johannes Gebauer wrote:
[snip]> You know, it is really funny how people conceive the
world from their
perspective.
Sibelius introduced linked parts quite a while before Finale did. When
this happened there was an outcry on this list that Finale needed to
have it, too. So eventually MakeMusic reinvented the wheel once more.
As to the topic: My wife needs a notation program for her work now, so
originally I tried to teach her some Finale. I quickly gave up. We now
bought Sibelius, which is simply a much easier program to learn for
anyone not being an expert. Its approach is simply so much more logical...
As a long-time Speedy Entry user in Finale, I have to say
that it didn't take me too long to get comfortable with
Sibelius' Rhythm First, Pitch Second entry mode. It's not
all that difficult, and if you wish to change the rhythm
after having input something you don't like, it's easy to
change.
I really don't see what all the fuss is, since in the
compositional mode, I don't enter either until I've got a
good idea what both pitch and rhythm should be and then it
doesn't matter which goes in first. In editing/transcribing
mode, it's easy because the rhythm is already decided, and
in arranging mode, I find it a lot like compositional mode
-- for my own satisfaction I have to have a good mental
image of what both pitch and rhythm should be before
entering either.
Not only is Sibelius' approach much more logical for many
novice notation software users, the output is much more
elegant than Finale's if one uses the default files of both
with no changes.
That's a long-standing gripe about Finale, one raised over
and over again on this list -- why don't they put an elegant
default file together which would make first-time users
think "Wow, this is incredible! Hey guys, look at this
music . . ." instead of "Gee, that's interesting. How can I
get it to look more like the published music I buy?"
As John Howell said, the competition is good for both
products but it's quite evident which product is leading the
market and forcing the other product to play catch-up with
each new version. There is nothing in Finale2010 (or 2010a)
which is going to have the Sibelius developers scratching
their heads and saying "We've got to get this idea into
Sibelius. How did they do that?"
And on the Sibelius list there is no discussion at all of
"Finale can do xyz, why can't Sibelius do it?" and no
discussion of "Finale did abc in its last upgrade, I wonder
when Sibelius will do it?" The discussions on the Sibelius
list are as if Finale didn't exist except as a product many
of the users had abandoned or at least are using in tandem
with Sibelius depending on the demands of the project and
clients of the day.
--
David H. Bailey
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
