> Johannes Gebauer écrit: > >I haven't really looked at Sibelius yet, but the first thing I am > going to > >do with it is to try and tweak the output to my liking. This is very > >flexible in Finale, we shall see what Sibelius can do. The following > items > >need to be investigated: > > > >-Font > >-beams > >-slurs > >-ties > >-layout > > > >Only if I am satisfied with all of them will I switch. > dc replied: > > Then, slurs, and perhaps ties, weren't as tweakable as those of Finale in Sibelius 5. I think this has been improved in Sibelius 6. Can anyone > confirm this?
As already said, Fonts are fine in Sibelius. I've even been able to use the Engraver font from Finale in Sibelius. Although the terminology and methods are different, I found it quite easy to change the tie settings from the default (European?) look (which to me look too much like slurs) to something more to my liking. Slurs have all the handles like Finale's engraver slurs and can be shaped quite nicely. There also a number of settings in the house styles option (like Finale's document settings) for changing ties. There are also a number of beam setting that can be adjusted. All that said, I think Finale has more parameters that can be tweaked, but on the other hand, the defaults in Sibelius don't need much tweaking. I find layout to be the area where Sibelius is better. But, it is worth reading the manual on layout and watching a video that is available on the Sibelius website. The way an experienced Finale user might approach layout is not necessarily the best way to approach it in Sibelius. Finale is a little stronger in the options available for music spacing. > For the rest, I think it's not a question of being able to tweak or not, but of how easy and quick it is to do so, especially for someone who's > been doing this for years in Finale... I've been using Finale since 1996 - or whenever the last year they included the what seems like 20 pounds of printed manuals. I found the transition to Sibelius to be quite easy. To practice learning Sibelius, and to serve other needs, I started transcribing a number of piano and organ titles into Sibelius. For note entry, I do miss the note first then rhythm aspect of speedy entry, but real-time input and scanning has been faster, but I've picked up Sibelius' way of doing simple/speedy entry. I'm finding that I'm working as fast, if not faster in Sibelius. One possible exception is if a piece has a lot of triplets, Finale seems to handle triplet note entry and copying of passages with triplets (tuplets) better. > It would be nice to see the same piece, with the same font, done both in Finale and in Sibelius, and done deliberately trying to get the same > output. I did try this with a one-page easy piano setting of a familiar standard. I didn't spend a lot of time trying to get all the details exactly the same, and used the default fonts of each program, but did try to get a fairly close output. I showed it to a few piano students and others with musical knowledge (but nobody I'd call a professional) and all but one liked the look of the Sibelius version better. > - The conversion of Finale files into Sibelius is Very Bad, pace Dolet, Agreed. You'll still have to use Finale. > Does Sibelius have the equivalent of Finalescript, by the way? They have "ManuScript". It is far more powerful than FinaleScript, but I don't think it is nearly as easy or for the faint of heart. It reminds me a bit of looking at a bunch of Java code. For someone who's done some programming, not an impossible task to learn. There are literally hundreds of 3rd party plugins available on their site and probably a hundred or so included with the program. All of them can be edited yourself. James Gilbert JamesGilbertMusic.com _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
